Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38750192›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Diagnostic utility of clinicodemographic, biochemical and metabolite variables to identify viable pregnancies in a symptomatic cohort during early gestation.

Christopher J Hill, Marie M Phelan, Philip J Dutton, Paula Busuulwa, Alison Maclean, Andrew S Davison, Josephine A Drury, Nicola Tempest, Andrew W Horne, Eva Caamaño Gutiérrez and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

11 authors.

Christopher J HillDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Centre for Women's Health Research, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, L8 7SS, UK.
Marie M PhelanHigh Field NMR Facility, Liverpool Shared Research Facilities, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7TX, UK.
Philip J DuttonDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Centre for Women's Health Research, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, L8 7SS, UK.
Paula BusuulwaDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Centre for Women's Health Research, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, L8 7SS, UK.
Alison MacleanDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Centre for Women's Health Research, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, L8 7SS, UK.
Andrew S DavisonDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Centre for Women's Health Research, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, L8 7SS, UK.
Josephine A DruryDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Centre for Women's Health Research, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, L8 7SS, UK.
Nicola TempestDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Centre for Women's Health Research, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, L8 7SS, UK.
Andrew W HorneCentre for Reproductive Health, Institute for Regeneration and Repair, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH16 4UU, UK.
Eva Caamaño GutiérrezHigh Field NMR Facility, Liverpool Shared Research Facilities, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7TX, UK.
Dharani K HapangamaDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Centre for Women's Health Research, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, L8 7SS, UK. dharani@liverpool.ac.uk.

Funding

MRC MR/V007238/1Wellbeing of Women RG2137Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust IFFS3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A significant number of pregnancies are lost in the first trimester and 1-2% are ectopic pregnancies (EPs). Early pregnancy loss in general can cause significant morbidity with bleeding or infection, while EPs are the leading cause of maternal mortality in the first trimester. Symptoms of pregnancy loss and EP are very similar (including pain and bleeding); however, these symptoms are also common in live normally sited pregnancies (LNSP). To date, no biomarkers have been identified to differentiate LNSP from pregnancies that will not progress beyond early gestation (non-viable or EPs), defined together as combined adverse outcomes (CAO). In this study, we present a novel machine learning pipeline to create prediction models that identify a composite biomarker to differentiate LNSP from CAO in symptomatic women. This prospective cohort study included 370 participants. A single blood sample was prospectively collected from participants on first emergency presentation prior to final clinical diagnosis of pregnancy outcome: LNSP, miscarriage, pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) or tubal EP (tEP). Miscarriage, PUL and tEP were grouped together into a CAO group. Human chorionic gonadotrophin β (β-hCG) and progesterone concentrations were measured in plasma. Serum samples were subjected to untargeted metabolomic profiling. The cohort was randomly split into train and validation data sets, with the train data set subjected to variable selection. Nine metabolite signals were identified as key discriminators of LNSP versus CAO. Random forest models were constructed using stable metabolite signals alone, or in combination with plasma hormone concentrations and demographic data. When comparing LNSP with CAO, a model with stable metabolite signals only demonstrated a modest predictive accuracy (0.68), which was comparable to a model of β-hCG and progesterone (0.71). The best model for LNSP prediction comprised stable metabolite signals and hormone concentrations (accuracy = 0.79). In conclusion, serum metabolite levels and biochemical markers from a single blood sample possess modest predictive utility in differentiating LNSP from CAO pregnancies upon first presentation, which is improved by variable selection and combination using machine learning. A diagnostic test to confirm LNSP and thus exclude pregnancies affecting maternal morbidity and potentially life-threatening outcomes would be invaluable in emergency situations.

Indexed as

BiomarkersPregnancy, EctopicAbortion, SpontaneousAdultChorionic Gonadotropin, beta Subunit, HumanFemaleHumansMachine LearningPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePregnancy Trimester, FirstProgesteroneProspective StudiesBiomarkersChorionic Gonadotropin, beta Subunit, HumanProgesteroneBiomarkersEarly pregnancyEctopic pregnancyMachine learningMetabolomicsMiscarriage

Identifiers

PMID38750192
PMCPMC11096363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.