A prediction score to assess the risk of delivering a large for gestational age infant among obese women

Multivariable prediction models for fetal macrosomia and large for gestational age: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The identification of large for gestational age (LGA) and macrosomic fetuses is essential for counselling and managing these pregnancies.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the literature for multivariable prediction models for LGA and macrosomia, assessing the performance, quality and applicability of the included model in clinical practice.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched until June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included observational and experimental studies reporting the development and/or validation of any multivariable prediction model for fetal macrosomia and/or LGA. We excluded studies that used a single variable or did not evaluate model performance.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted using the Checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies checklist. The model performance measures discrimination, calibration and validation were extracted. The quality and completion of reporting within each study was assessed by its adherence to the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) checklist. The risk of bias and applicability were measured using PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 8442 citations were identified, with 58 included in the analysis: 32/58 (55.2%) developed, 21/58 (36.2%) developed and internally validated and 2/58 (3.4%) developed and externally validated a model. Only three studies externally validated pre-existing models. Macrosomia and LGA were differentially defined by many studies. In total, 111 multivariable prediction models were developed using 112 different variables. Model discrimination was wide ranging area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC 0.56-0.96) and few studies reported calibration (11/58, 19.0%). Only 5/58 (8.6%) studies had a low risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

There are currently no multivariable prediction models for macrosomia/LGA that are ready for clinical implementation.

Comparison of Multivariable Logistic Regression and Other Machine Learning Algorithms for Prognostic Prediction Studies in Pregnancy Care: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Predictions in pregnancy care are complex because of interactions among multiple factors. Hence, pregnancy outcomes are not easily predicted by a single predictor using only one algorithm or modeling method.

Objective

This study aims to review and compare the predictive performances between logistic regression (LR) and other machine learning algorithms for developing or validating a multivariable prognostic prediction model for pregnancy care to inform clinicians’ decision making.

Methods

Research articles from MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were reviewed following several guidelines for a prognostic prediction study, including a risk of bias (ROB) assessment. We report the results based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies were primarily framed as PICOTS (population, index, comparator, outcomes, timing, and setting): Population: men or women in procreative management, pregnant women, and fetuses or newborns; Index: multivariable prognostic prediction models using non-LR algorithms for risk classification to inform clinicians’ decision making; Comparator: the models applying an LR; Outcomes: pregnancy-related outcomes of procreation or pregnancy outcomes for pregnant women and fetuses or newborns; Timing: pre-, inter-, and peripregnancy periods (predictors), at the pregnancy, delivery, and either puerperal or neonatal period (outcome), and either short- or long-term prognoses (time interval); and Setting: primary care or hospital. The results were synthesized by reporting study characteristics and ROBs and by random effects modeling of the difference of the logit area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of each non-LR model compared with the LR model for the same pregnancy outcomes. We also reported between-study heterogeneity by using τ² and I².

Results

Of the 2093 records, we included 142 studies for the systematic review and 62 studies for a meta-analysis. Most prediction models used LR (92/142, 64.8%) and artificial neural networks (20/142, 14.1%) among non-LR algorithms. Only 16.9% (24/142) of studies had a low ROB. A total of 2 non-LR algorithms from low ROB studies significantly outperformed LR. The first algorithm was a random forest for preterm delivery (logit AUROC 2.51, 95% CI 1.49-3.53; I²=86%; τ²=0.77) and pre-eclampsia (logit AUROC 1.2, 95% CI 0.72-1.67; I²=75%; τ²=0.09). The second algorithm was gradient boosting for cesarean section (logit AUROC 2.26, 95% CI 1.39-3.13; I²=75%; τ²=0.43) and gestational diabetes (logit AUROC 1.03, 95% CI 0.69-1.37; I²=83%; τ²=0.07).

Conclusions

Prediction models with the best performances across studies were not necessarily those that used LR but also used random forest and gradient boosting that also performed well. We recommend a reanalysis of existing LR models for several pregnancy outcomes by comparing them with those algorithms that apply standard guidelines.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42019136106; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=136106

Ultrasound fetal anthropometry to identify large-for-gestational-age: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Large-for-gestational-age (LGA) has been suggested to show high rates of mortality and morbidity in pregnant women and their neonates. This study was based on data from 2015 or later to determine whether ultrasound fetal anthropometry is helpful for identifying LGA.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of studies published in English were summarized using bivariate diagnostic meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed using the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test was assessed to identify publication bias.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The findings of abdominal circumference were based on a single article. Despite high specificity (0.92), anthropometric formulas showed moderate sensitivity (0.71) and DOR (26) and were categorized as providing "neither exclusion (positive LR<10) nor confirmation (negative LR>0.1)" strategy based on 28 good-quality studies in five articles. However, they were more promising than previous meta-analytic findings not limited to 2015 or later. No publication bias was identified with respect to assessment of anthropometric formulas (P=0.286).

CONCLUSIONS

Current ultrasound fetal anthropometry is not strongly helpful, but the values of anthropometric formulas provided by future ultrasound are expected especially as the secondary screening of LGA.