MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4293217032 · doi:10.1016/j.xagr.2022.100091

Validation of gestational age determination from ultrasound or a metabolic gestational age algorithm using exact date of conception in a cohort of newborns conceived using assisted reproduction technologies

2022· article· en· W4293217032 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Steven Hawken, Brieanne Olibris, Robin Ducharme, A. Brianne Bota, Jeffrey C. Murray, Beth K. Potter, Mark Walker, Pranesh Chakraborty, Kumanan Wilson

Notice bibliographique

RevueAJOG Global Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Établissements canadiensNewborn Screening OntarioUniversity of OttawaChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioOttawa Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Mots-clésGestational ageCohortReproductionObstetricsMedicineAlgorithmComputer sciencePregnancyBiologyPathologyGenetics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Accurate estimates of gestational age in pregnancy are important for the provision of optimal care. Although current guidelines generally recommend estimating gestational age via first-trimester ultrasound measurement of crown-rump length, error associated with this method can range from 3 to 8 days of gestation. In pregnancies resulting from assisted reproductive technology, estimated due date can be calculated on the basis of the age of the embryo and the date of embryo transfer, arguably providing the most accurate estimates possible. We have developed and extensively validated statistical models to estimate gestational age postnatally using metabolomic markers from blood samples in combination with clinical and demographic data. These models have shown high accuracy compared with first-trimester ultrasound, the recommended method for estimating gestational age in spontaneous pregnancies. We hypothesized that gestational age derived from date and stage of embryo at transfer in newborns conceived using assisted reproduction therapy would provide the most accurate reference standard possible to evaluate and compare the accuracy of both first-trimester ultrasound and metabolomic model-based gestational dating. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate both first-trimester ultrasound dating and postnatal metabolomic gestational age estimation models against gestational age derived from date and stage of embryo at transfer in a cohort of newborns conceived via assisted reproductive technology, both overall and in important subgroups of interest (preterm birth, small for gestational age, and multiple birth). STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of infants born in Ontario, Canada between 2015 and 2017 and captured in the provincial birth registry. Spontaneous conceptions were randomly partitioned into a model derivation sample (80%) and a test sample (20%) for model validation. A cohort of assisted conceptions resulting from fresh embryo transfers was derived to evaluate the accuracy of both ultrasound and model-based gestational dating. Postnatal gestational age estimation models were developed with multivariable linear regression using elastic-net regularization. Gestational age estimates from dating ultrasound and from postnatal metabolomic models were compared with date of embryo transfer reference gestational age in the independent test cohorts. Accuracy was quantified by calculating mean absolute error and the square root of mean squared error. RESULTS: Our model derivation cohort included 202,300 spontaneous conceptions, and the testing cohorts included 50,735 spontaneous conceptions and 1924 assisted conceptions. In the assisted conception cohort, first-trimester dating ultrasound was accurate to within approximately ±1.5 days compared with date of embryo transfer reference overall (mean absolute error, 0.21 [95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.23]). When compared with gestational age derived from date of embryo transfer, the metabolomic estimation models were accurate to within approximately ±5 days overall (0.79 [0.76-0.81] weeks). When ultrasound was used as the reference in validating the metabolomic model, the mean absolute error was slightly higher overall (0.81 [0.78-0.84] weeks). In general, the accuracy of gestational age estimates derived from ultrasound or metabolomic models was highest in term infants and lower in preterm and small-for-gestational-age newborns. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the accuracy of ultrasound as a gestational age dating tool. They also support the potential utility of metabolic gestational age dating algorithms in settings where ultrasound or other accurate methods of estimating gestational age are not available because of lack of infrastructure or specialized training (eg, low-income countries). However, the accuracy of metabolomic model-based dating was generally lower than that of ultrasound.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,331
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,658

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,024
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,051
Tête enseignante GPT0,333
Écart entre enseignants0,282 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2022
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAJOG Global ReportsMême sujetPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesTravaux en français237 207