1
|
Krsman A, Grujić Z, Čapko D, Dragutinović D, Baturan B, Nikolić A, Antić Trifunović K, Dickov I. Ultrasound assessment of cervical status compared to the Bishop score - predicting the success of labor induction using a machine learning-based model. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2023; 27:6332-6342. [PMID: 37458650 DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202307_32993] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/20/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The main aim of this study was to develop a machine-learning-based model for predicting the success of labor induction (IOL). To that end, the clinical and ultrasound parameters that affect the successfulness of labor induction were assessed. Then, a new ultrasound scoring system (USS) was developed and assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS This prospective observational study included 192 term women who underwent induction of labor. First, a wide range of clinical and ultrasound pre-induction parameters were recorded. The induction was initiated by endocervical administration of dinoprostone gel (for Bishop score ≤5) or intravenous oxytocin (for Bishop score ≥6). After evaluating ultrasound parameters, we created an ultrasound scoring system and compared it with the Bishop score and clinical parameters. Finally, a comprehensive model using machine learning algorithms for predicting the success of the induction of labor was developed. RESULTS In terms of clinical parameters, this study found that IOL correlates with parity, body mass index (BMI) (both at p<0.05), and the Bishop score (p<0.001). All ultrasound parameters were statistically significant (p<0.05) apart from the posterior cervical angle. However, compared to the Bishop score, the new USS showed a slightly lower sensitivity (0.55 compared to 0.64) but much higher specificity (0.75 compared to 0.44) at a cut-off of 1.66. The proposed model, which can predict 83% of the events correctly, encompasses the Bishop score, USS, and clinical parameters. CONCLUSIONS The findings imply that the model developed in this study, which takes into account clinical parameters (parity, BMI), the ultrasound parameters and the Bishop score and uses machine learning algorithms, yields better results than models using other parameters.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Krsman
- Medical Faculty of Novi Sad, The University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ayres NJ, Ban G, Bison G, Bodek K, Bondar V, Chanel E, Chiu PJ, Crawford CB, Daum M, Emmenegger S, Ferraris-Bouchez L, Flaux P, Grujić Z, Harris PG, Hild N, Hommet J, Kasprzak M, Kermaïdic Y, Kirch K, Komposch S, Kozela A, Krempel J, Lauss B, Lefort T, Lemiere Y, Leredde A, Mohanmurthy P, Mtchedlishvili A, Naviliat-Cuncic O, Pais D, Piegsa FM, Pignol G, Rawlik M, Rebreyend D, Rienäcker I, Ries D, Roccia S, Rozpedzik D, Schmidt-Wellenburg P, Schnabel A, Virot R, Weis A, Wursten E, Zejma J, Zsigmond G. Data blinding for the nEDM experiment at PSI. Eur Phys J A Hadron Nucl 2021; 57:152. [PMID: 34776778 PMCID: PMC8550649 DOI: 10.1140/epja/s10050-021-00456-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2020] [Accepted: 04/04/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
Psychological bias towards, or away from, prior measurements or theory predictions is an intrinsic threat to any data analysis. While various methods can be used to try to avoid such a bias, e.g. actively avoiding looking at the result, only data blinding is a traceable and trustworthy method that can circumvent the bias and convince a public audience that there is not even an accidental psychological bias. Data blinding is nowadays a standard practice in particle physics, but it is particularly difficult for experiments searching for the neutron electric dipole moment (nEDM), as several cross measurements, in particular of the magnetic field, create a self-consistent network into which it is hard to inject a false signal. We present an algorithm that modifies the data without influencing the experiment. Results of an automated analysis of the data are used to change the recorded spin state of a few neutrons within each measurement cycle. The flexible algorithm may be applied twice (or more) to the data, thus providing the option of sequentially applying various blinding offsets for separate analysis steps with independent teams. The subtle manner in which the data are modified allows one subsequently to adjust the algorithm and to produce a re-blinded data set without revealing the initial blinding offset. The method was designed for the 2015/2016 measurement campaign of the nEDM experiment at the Paul Scherrer Institute. However, it can be re-used with minor modification for the follow-up experiment n2EDM, and may be suitable for comparable projects elsewhere.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N. J. Ayres
- Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton UK
| | - G. Ban
- Normandie Université, ENSICAEN, UNICAEN, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC Caen, Caen, France
| | - G. Bison
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - K. Bodek
- M. Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Kraków, Poland
| | - V. Bondar
- Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
- Instituut voor Kern- en Stralingsfysica, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - E. Chanel
- University of Bern, Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics, Laboratory for High Energy Physics, Bern, Switzerland
| | - P.-J. Chiu
- Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - C. B. Crawford
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA
| | - M. Daum
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - S. Emmenegger
- Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | | | - P. Flaux
- Normandie Université, ENSICAEN, UNICAEN, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC Caen, Caen, France
| | - Z. Grujić
- Physics Department, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
- Present Address: Institute of Physics Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
| | - P. G. Harris
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton UK
| | - N. Hild
- Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - J. Hommet
- Normandie Université, ENSICAEN, UNICAEN, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC Caen, Caen, France
| | - M. Kasprzak
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
- Instituut voor Kern- en Stralingsfysica, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Physics Department, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
| | - Y. Kermaïdic
- Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, LPSC-IN2P3, Grenoble, France
| | - K. Kirch
- Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - S. Komposch
- Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - A. Kozela
- H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland
| | - J. Krempel
- Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - B. Lauss
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - T. Lefort
- Normandie Université, ENSICAEN, UNICAEN, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC Caen, Caen, France
| | - Y. Lemiere
- Normandie Université, ENSICAEN, UNICAEN, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC Caen, Caen, France
| | - A. Leredde
- Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, LPSC-IN2P3, Grenoble, France
| | - P. Mohanmurthy
- Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | | | - O. Naviliat-Cuncic
- Normandie Université, ENSICAEN, UNICAEN, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC Caen, Caen, France
| | - D. Pais
- Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - F. M. Piegsa
- University of Bern, Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics, Laboratory for High Energy Physics, Bern, Switzerland
| | - G. Pignol
- Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, LPSC-IN2P3, Grenoble, France
| | - M. Rawlik
- Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - D. Rebreyend
- Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, LPSC-IN2P3, Grenoble, France
| | - I. Rienäcker
- Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - D. Ries
- Department of Chemistry - TRIGA site, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany
| | - S. Roccia
- Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, LPSC-IN2P3, Grenoble, France
- Institut Laue-Langevin, Grenoble, France
| | - D. Rozpedzik
- M. Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Kraków, Poland
| | | | - A. Schnabel
- Physikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt, Berlin, Germany
| | - R. Virot
- Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, LPSC-IN2P3, Grenoble, France
| | - A. Weis
- Physics Department, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
| | - E. Wursten
- Instituut voor Kern- en Stralingsfysica, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Present Address: CERN, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - J. Zejma
- M. Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Kraków, Poland
| | - G. Zsigmond
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|