Predictive Performance of PlGF (Placental Growth Factor) for Screening Preeclampsia in Asymptomatic Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preeclampsia is a systemic syndrome that seems to originate from the placenta and is associated with an imbalance between angiogenic factors in the maternal circulation. One of the well-studied and widely used factors is PlGF (placental growth factor), the levels of which drop in women destined to develop preeclampsia. This drop is known to precede the development of actual signs and symptoms of preeclampsia, thus proving to be a useful screening tool in predicting the disease. The literature varies widely in terms of the clinical usefulness of the test. We conducted a meta-analysis to study the predictive accuracy of PlGF in asymptomatic women. Our analysis included 40 studies with 3189 cases of preeclampsia and 89 498 controls. The overall predictive odds ratio of the test was 9 (6-13). Subgroup analysis evaluating various PlGF thresholds demonstrated that the predictive values were highest for PlGF levels between 80 and 120 pg/mL with a high predictive odds ratio of 25 (7-88), a sensitivity of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.86), a specificity of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.75-0.95), a positive likelihood ratio of 6.3 (95% CI, 2.7-14.7), and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.26 (95% CI, 0.16-0.42). Additionally, the accuracy was higher when the test was performed after 14 weeks of gestation (OR, 10 [7-15]) and for prediction of early onset preeclampsia (OR, 18 [9-37]). We conclude that PlGF is a useful screening tool to predict preeclampsia. Nonetheless, its utility should be judged with caution and randomized controlled trials are warranted to explore if its implementation improves perinatal outcomes in asymptomatic women.
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 | 0.012 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".