Development and validation of a prognostic model to predict birth weight: individual participant data meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To predict birth weight at various potential gestational ages of delivery based on data routinely available at the first antenatal visit. Design Individual participant data meta-analysis. Data sources Individual participant data of four cohorts (237 228 pregnancies) from the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications (IPPIC) network dataset. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies in the IPPIC network were identified by searching major databases for studies reporting risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as pre-eclampsia, fetal growth restriction, and stillbirth, from database inception to August 2019. Data of four IPPIC cohorts (237 228 pregnancies) from the US (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2018; 233 483 pregnancies), UK (Allen et al, 2017; 1045 pregnancies), Norway (STORK Groruddalen research programme, 2010; 823 pregnancies), and Australia (Rumbold et al, 2006; 1877 pregnancies) were included in the development of the model. Results The IPPIC birth weight model was developed with random intercept regression models with backward elimination for variable selection. Internal-external cross validation was performed to assess the study specific and pooled performance of the model, reported as calibration slope, calibration-in-the-large, and observed versus expected average birth weight ratio. Meta-analysis showed that the apparent performance of the model had good calibration (calibration slope 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.10; calibration-in-the-large 44.5 g, −18.4 to 107.3) with an observed versus expected average birth weight ratio of 1.02 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.07). The proportion of variation in birth weight explained by the model (R2) was 46.9% (range 32.7-56.1% in each cohort). On internal-external cross validation, the model showed good calibration and predictive performance when validated in three cohorts with a calibration slope of 0.90 (Allen cohort), 1.04 (STORK Groruddalen cohort), and 1.07 (Rumbold cohort), calibration-in-the-large of −22.3 g (Allen cohort), −33.42 (Rumbold cohort), and 86.4 g (STORK Groruddalen cohort), and observed versus expected ratio of 0.99 (Rumbold cohort), 1.00 (Allen cohort), and 1.03 (STORK Groruddalen cohort); respective pooled estimates were 1.00 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.23; calibration slope), 9.7 g (−154.3 to 173.8; calibration-in-the-large), and 1.00 (0.94 to 1.07; observed v expected ratio). The model predictions were more accurate (smaller mean square error) in the lower end of predicted birth weight, which is important in informing clinical decision making. Conclusions The IPPIC birth weight model allowed birth weight predictions for a range of possible gestational ages. The model explained about 50% of individual variation in birth weights, was well calibrated (especially in babies at high risk of fetal growth restriction and its complications), and showed promising performance in four different populations included in the individual participant data meta-analysis. Further research to examine the generalisability of performance in other countries, settings, and subgroups is required. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42019135045
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 | 0.078 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".