MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4387868799 · doi:10.1101/2023.10.23.23297401

Systematic Review of risk score prediction models using maternal characteristics with and without biomarkers for the prediction of GDM

2023· preprint· en· W4387868799 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Durga Parkhi, Swetha Sampathkumar, Yonas Ghebremichael‐Weldeselassie, Nithya Sukumar, Ponnusamy Saravanan

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilNovo NordiskUniversity of Warwick
KeywordsPregnancyMedicineGestationObservational studyGestational diabetesObstetricsFetusInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background GDM is associated with adverse maternal and fetal complications. By the time GDM is diagnosed, continuous exposure to the hyperglycaemic intrauterine environment can adversely affect the fetus. Hence, early pregnancy prediction of GDM is important. Aim To systematically evaluate whether composite risk score prediction models can accurately predict GDM in early pregnancy. Method Systematic review of observational studies involving pregnant women of <20 weeks of gestation was carried out. The search involved various databases, grey literature, and reference lists till August 2022. The primary outcome was the predictive performance of the models in terms of the AUC, for <14 weeks and 14-20 weeks of gestation. Results Sixty-seven articles for <14 weeks and 22 for 14-20 weeks of gestation were included (initial search - 4542). The sample size ranged from 42 to 1,160,933. The studies were from Canada, USA, UK, Europe, Israel, Iran, China, Taiwan, South Korea, South Africa, Australia, Singapore, and Thailand. For <14 weeks, the AUC ranges were 0.59-0.88 and 0.53-0.95, respectively for models that used only maternal characteristics and for those that included biomarkers. For 14-20 weeks these AUCs were 0.68-0.71 and 0.65-0.92. Age, ethnicity, BMI, family history of diabetes, and prior GDM were the 5 most commonly used risk factors. The addition of systolic BP improved performance in some models. Triglycerides, PAPP-A, and lipocalin- 2, combined with maternal characteristics, have the highest predictive performance. AUC varied according to the population studied. Pooled analyses were not done due to high heterogeneity. Conclusion Accurate GDM risk prediction may be possible if common risk factors are combined with biomarkers. However, more research is needed in populations of high GDM risk. Artificial Intelligence-based risk prediction models that incorporate fetal biometry data may improve accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.082
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.082
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.016
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→