Accounting for Repeat Pregnancies in Risk Prediction Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In perinatal epidemiology, the development of risk prediction models is complicated by parity; how repeat pregnancies influence the predictive accuracy of models that include obstetrical history is unclear. METHODS: To assess the influence of repeat pregnancies on the association between predictors and the outcomes, as well as the influence of ignoring the nonindependence between pregnancies, we created four analytical cohorts using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The cohorts included (1) first deliveries, (2) a random sample of one delivery per woman, (3) all eligible deliveries per woman, and (4) all eligible deliveries and censoring of follow-up at subsequent pregnancies. Using Plasmode simulations, we varied the predictor-outcome association across cohorts. RESULTS: We found minimal differences in the relative contribution of predictors to the overall predictions and the discriminative accuracy of models in the cohort of randomly sampled deliveries versus the all deliveries cohort (C-statistic: 0.62 vs. 0.63; Nagelkerke's R2: 0.03 for both). Accounting for clustering and censoring upon subsequent pregnancies also had negligible influence on model performance. We found important differences in model performance between the models developed in the cohort of first deliveries and the random sample of deliveries. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, a model including first deliveries had the best predictive accuracy but was not generalizable to women of varying parities. Moreover, including repeat pregnancies did not improve the predictive accuracy of the models. Multiple models may be needed to improve the transportability and accuracy of prediction models when the outcome of interest is influenced by parity.
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 | 0.059 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".