Use of cell-free signals as biomarkers for early and easy prediction of preeclampsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Preeclampsia (PE) is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity worldwide. However, current methods of screening are complicated and require special skill sets. In this observational study of prospectively collected samples, we wanted to evaluate if cell-free (cf) DNA could be an efficient biomarker for identification of at-risk patients. Methods One hundred patients attending a private prenatal clinic in Canada were enrolled in their first trimester of pregnancy and a blood draw was carried out at 11 + 0 to 14 + 2 weeks’ (timepoint A) and 17 + 6 to 25 + 5 weeks of gestation (timepoint B). CfDNA signals, namely concentration, fetal fraction, and fragment size distribution, were correlated with clinical outcomes in the test population to develop the logistic regression model. Results Twelve patients developed PE—four early-stage and eight late-stage PE. Significant differences were observed between PE patients and control cases for all three cfDNA signals at timepoint A, while both fetal fraction and concentration were significantly different between PE patients and control cases at timepoint B. Overall, the model had a sensitivity of up to 100% and specificity of up to 87.5% at Timepoint A. Conclusion This proof-of-principle study showed that use of this logistic regression model could identify patients at risk of preeclampsia in the first trimester of pregnancy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".