ArticleResearch square2024
AI-based analysis of fetal growth restriction in a prospective obstetric cohort quantifies compound risks for perinatal morbidity and mortality and identifies previously unrecognized high risk clinical scenarios.
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Fetal growth restriction (FGR) is a leading risk factor for stillbirth, yet the diagnosis of FGR confers considerable prognostic uncertainty, as most infants with FGR do not experience any morbidity. Our objective was to use data from a large, deeply phenotyped observational obstetric cohort to develop a probabilistic graphical model (PGM), a type of "explainable artificial intelligence (AI)", as a potential framework to better understand how interrelated variables contribute to perinatal morbidity risk in FGR. Methods: Using data from 9,558 pregnancies delivered at ≥ 20 weeks with available outcome data, we derived and validated a PGM using randomly selected sub-cohorts of 80% (n = 7645) and 20% (n = 1,912), respectively, to discriminate cases of FGR resulting in composite perinatal morbidity from those that did not. We also sought to identify context-specific risk relationships among inter-related variables in FGR. Performance was assessed as area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC). Results: Feature selection identified the 16 most informative variables, which yielded a PGM with good overall performance in the validation cohort (AUC 0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.87), including among "N of 1" unique scenarios (AUC 0.81, 0.72-0.90). Using the PGM, we identified FGR scenarios with a risk of perinatal morbidity no different from that of the cohort background (e.g. female fetus, estimated fetal weight (EFW) 3-9th percentile, no preexisting diabetes, no progesterone use; RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.7-1.1) alongside others that conferred a nearly 10-fold higher risk (female fetus, EFW 3-9th percentile, maternal preexisting diabetes, progesterone use; RR 9.8, 7.5-11.6). This led to the recognition of a PGM-identified latent interaction of fetal sex with preexisting diabetes, wherein the typical protective effect of female fetal sex was reversed in the presence of maternal diabetes. Conclusions: PGMs are able to capture and quantify context-specific risk relationships in FGR and identify latent variable interactions that are associated with large differences in risk. FGR scenarios that are separated by nearly 10-fold perinatal morbidity risk would be managed similarly under current FGR clinical guidelines, highlighting the need for more precise approaches to risk estimation in FGR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.