Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38519152›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Digital health2024

Machine learning-enabled maternal risk assessment for women with pre-eclampsia (the PIERS-ML model): a modelling study.

Tünde Montgomery-Csobán, Kimberley Kavanagh, Paul Murray, Chris Robertson, Sarah J E Barry, U Vivian Ukah, Beth A Payne, Kypros H Nicolaides, Argyro Syngelaki, Olivia Ionescu and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
20.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Validation of the fullPIERS model for predicting severe maternal outcomes in preeclampsia in five Brazilian centers.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Tünde Montgomery-CsobánDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
Kimberley KavanaghDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
Paul MurrayDepartment of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
Chris RobertsonDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
Sarah J E BarryDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
U Vivian UkahDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Beth A PayneSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Kypros H NicolaidesHarris Birthright Research Centre for Fetal Medicine, King's College Hospital, London, UK.
Argyro SyngelakiHarris Birthright Research Centre for Fetal Medicine, King's College Hospital, London, UK.
Olivia IonescuHarris Birthright Research Centre for Fetal Medicine, King's College Hospital, London, UK; Fetal Medicine Unit, Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham, UK.
Ranjit AkolekarFetal Medicine Unit, Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham, UK; Institute of Medical Sciences, Canterbury Christ Church University, Chatham, UK.
Jennifer A HutcheonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Institute of Women and Children's Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Laura A MageeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, King's College London, London UK.
Peter von DadelszenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, King's College London, London UK. Electronic address: pvd@kcl.ac.uk.
PIERS Consortium
University of Strathclyde · GBUniversity of British Columbia · CAMedway Maritime Hospital · GBKing's College Hospital · GBKing's College London · GBHarris Birthright Research Centre for Fetal Medicine · GBMcGill University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAffecting 2-4% of pregnancies, pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal death and morbidity worldwide. Using routinely available data, we aimed to develop and validate a novel machine learning-based and clinical setting-responsive time-of-disease model to rule out and rule in adverse maternal outcomes in women presenting with pre-eclampsia.

methodsWe used health system, demographic, and clinical data from the day of first assessment with pre-eclampsia to predict a Delphi-derived composite outcome of maternal mortality or severe morbidity within 2 days. Machine learning methods, multiple imputation, and ten-fold cross-validation were used to fit models on a development dataset (75% of combined published data of 8843 patients from 11 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries). Validation was undertaken on the unseen 25%, and an additional external validation was performed in 2901 inpatient women admitted with pre-eclampsia to two hospitals in south-east England. Predictive risk accuracy was determined by area-under-the-receiver-operator characteristic (AUROC), and risk categories were data-driven and defined by negative (-LR) and positive (+LR) likelihood ratios.

findingsOf 8843 participants, 590 (6·7%) developed the composite adverse maternal outcome within 2 days, 813 (9·2%) within 7 days, and 1083 (12·2%) at any time. An 18-variable random forest-based prediction model, PIERS-ML, was accurate (AUROC 0·80 [95% CI 0·76-0·84] vs the currently used logistic regression model, fullPIERS: AUROC 0·68 [0·63-0·74]) and categorised women into very low risk (-LR <0·1; eight [0·7%] of 1103 women), low risk (-LR 0·1 to 0·2; 321 [29·1%] women), moderate risk (-LR >0·2 and +LR <5·0; 676 [61·3%] women), high risk (+LR 5·0 to 10·0, 87 [7·9%] women), and very high risk (+LR >10·0; 11 [1·0%] women). Adverse maternal event rates were 0% for very low risk, 2% for low risk, 5% for moderate risk, 26% for high risk, and 91% for very high risk within 48 h. The 2901 women in the external validation dataset were accurately classified as being at very low risk (0% with outcomes), low risk (1%), moderate risk (4%), high risk (33%), or very high risk (67%).

interpretationThe PIERS-ML model improves identification of women with pre-eclampsia who are at lowest and greatest risk of severe adverse maternal outcomes within 2 days of assessment, and can support provision of accurate guidance to women, their families, and their maternity care providers.

fundingUniversity of Strathclyde Diversity in Data Linkage Centre for Doctoral Training, the Fetal Medicine Foundation, The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesPre-EclampsiaCanadaFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID38519152
PMCPMC10983826
OpenAlexW4393021124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.