Assessment of the fullPIERS Risk Prediction Model in Women With Early-Onset Preeclampsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early-onset preeclampsia is associated with severe maternal and perinatal complications. The fullPIERS model (Preeclampsia Integrated Estimate of Risk) showed both internal and external validities for predicting adverse maternal outcomes within 48 hours for women admitted with preeclampsia at any gestational age. This ability to recognize women at the highest risk of complications earlier could aid in preventing these adverse outcomes through improved management. Because the majority (≈70%) of the women in the model development had late-onset preeclampsia, we assessed the performance of the fullPIERS model in women with early-onset preeclampsia to determine whether it will be useful in this subgroup of women with preeclampsia. Three cohorts of women admitted with early-onset preeclampsia between 2012 and 2016, from tertiary hospitals in Canada, the Netherlands, and United Kingdom, were used. Using the published model equation, the probability of experiencing an adverse maternal outcome was calculated for each woman, and model performance was evaluated based on discrimination, calibration, and stratification. The total data set included 1388 women, with an adverse maternal outcome rate of 7.3% within 48 hours of admission. The model had good discrimination, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.86), and a calibration slope of 0.68. The estimated likelihood ratio at the predicted probability of ≥30% was 23.4 (95% confidence interval, 14.83-36.79), suggesting a strong evidence to rule in adverse maternal outcomes. The fullPIERS model will aid in identifying women admitted with early-onset preeclampsia in similar settings who are at the highest risk of adverse outcomes, thereby allowing timely and effective interventions.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".