Temporal and external validation of the fullPIERS model for the prediction of adverse maternal outcomes in women with pre-eclampsia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fullPIERS model is a risk prediction model developed to predict adverse maternal outcomes within 48 h for women admitted with pre-eclampsia. External validation of the model is required before implementation for clinical use. We assessed the temporal and external validity of the fullPIERS model in high income settings using five cohorts collected between 2003 and 2016, from tertiary hospitals in Canada, the United States of America, Finland and the United Kingdom. The cohorts were grouped into three datasets for assessing the primary external, and temporal validity, and broader transportability of the model. The predicted risks of developing an adverse maternal outcome were calculated using the model equation and model performance was evaluated based on discrimination, calibration, and stratification. Our study included a total of 2429 women, with an adverse maternal outcome rate of 6.7%, 6.6%, and 7.0% in the primary external, temporal, and combined (broader) validation cohorts, respectively. The model had good discrimination in all datasets: 0.81 (95%CI 0.75-0.86), 0.82 (95%CI 0.76-0.87), and 0.75 (95%CI 0.71-0.80) for the primary external, temporal, and broader validation datasets, respectively. Calibration was best for the temporal cohort but poor in the broader validation dataset. The likelihood ratios estimated to rule in adverse maternal outcomes were high at a cut-off of ≥30% in all datasets. The fullPIERS model is temporally and externally valid and will be useful in the management of women with pre-eclampsia in high income settings although model recalibration is required to improve performance, specifically in the broader healthcare settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it