MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386898030 · doi:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.101110

Preterm preeclampsia screening using biomarkers: combining phenotypic classifiers into robust prediction models

2023· article· en· W4386898030 on OpenAlexaff
Grégoire Thomas, Argyro Syngelaki, K Hamed, Anais Perez-Montaño, A. P. Panigassi, Robin Tuytten, K. H. Nicolaides

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsThe Metabolomics Innovation Centre
FundersHorizon 2020Fetal Medicine FoundationEuropean Commission
KeywordsPreeclampsiaBiomarkerMedicinePlacental growth factorGestationUterine arteryObstetricsBody mass indexPregnancyBlood pressureMean arterial pressureProspective cohort studyInternal medicineBiologyHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Preeclampsia screening is a critical component of antenatal care worldwide. Currently, the most developed screening test for preeclampsia at 11 to 13 weeks' gestation integrates maternal demographic characteristics and medical history with 3 biomarkers-serum placental growth factor, mean arterial pressure, and uterine artery pulsatility index-to identify approximately 75% of women who develop preterm preeclampsia with delivery before 37 weeks of gestation. It is generally accepted that further improvements to preeclampsia screening require the use of additional biomarkers. We recently reported that the levels of specific metabolites and metabolite ratios are associated with preterm preeclampsia. Notably, for several of these markers, preterm preeclampsia prediction varied according to maternal body mass index class. These findings motivated us to study whether patient classification allowed for combining metabolites with the current biomarkers more effectively to improve prediction of preterm preeclampsia. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether metabolite biomarkers can improve biomarker-based preterm preeclampsia prediction in 3 screening resource scenarios according to the availability of: (1) placental growth factor, (2) placental growth factor+mean arterial pressure, and (3) placental growth factor+mean arterial pressure+uterine artery pulsatility index. STUDY DESIGN: This was an observational case-control study, drawn from a large prospective screening study at 11 to 13 weeks' gestation on the prediction of pregnancy complications, conducted at King's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom. Maternal blood samples were also collected for subsequent research studies. We used liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry to quantify levels of 50 metabolites previously associated with pregnancy complications in plasma samples from singleton pregnancies. Biomarker data, normalized using multiples of medians, on 1635 control and 106 preterm preeclampsia pregnancies were available for model development. Modeling was performed using a methodology that generated a prediction model for preterm preeclampsia in 4 consecutive steps: (1) z-normalization of predictors, (2) combinatorial modeling of so-called (weak) classifiers in the unstratified patient set and in discrete patient strata based on body mass index and/or race, (3) selection of classifiers, and (4) aggregation of the selected classifiers (ie, bagging) into the final prediction model. The prediction performance of models was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and detection rate at 10% false-positive rate. RESULTS: First, the predictor development methodology itself was evaluated. The patient set was split into a training set (2/3) and a test set (1/3) for predictor model development and internal validation. A prediction model was developed for each of the 3 different predictor panels, that is, placental growth factor+metabolites, placental growth factor+mean arterial pressure+metabolites, and placental growth factor+mean arterial pressure+uterine artery pulsatility index+metabolites. For all 3 models, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in the test set did not differ significantly from that of the training set. Next, a prediction model was developed using the complete data set for the 3 predictor panels. Among the 50 metabolites available for modeling, 26 were selected across the 3 prediction models; 21 contributed to at least 2 out of the 3 prediction models developed. Each time, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and detection rate were significantly higher with the new prediction model than with the reference model. Markedly, the estimated detection rate with the placental growth factor+mean arterial pressure+metabolites prediction model in all patients was 0.58 (95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.70), a 15% increase (P<.001) over the detection rate of 0.43 (95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.55) estimated for the reference placental growth factor+mean arterial pressure. The same prediction model significantly improved detection in Black (14%) and White (19%) patients, and in the normal-weight group (18.5≤body mass index<25) and the obese group (body mass index≥30), with respectively 19% and 20% more cases detected, but not in the overweight group, when compared with the reference model. Similar improvement patterns in detection rates were found in the other 2 scenarios, but with smaller improvement amplitudes. CONCLUSION: Metabolite biomarkers can be combined with the established biomarkers of placental growth factor, mean arterial pressure, and uterine artery pulsatility index to improve the biomarker component of early-pregnancy preterm preeclampsia prediction tests. Classification of the pregnant women according to the maternal characteristics of body mass index and/or race proved instrumental in achieving improved prediction. This suggests that maternal phenotyping can have a role in improving the prediction of obstetrical syndromes such as preeclampsia.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFMSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207