Using machine learning to predict the risk of developing hypertensive disorders of pregnancy using a contemporary nulliparous cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) are significant drivers of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Current management strategies include early identification and initiation of risk mitigating interventions facilitated by a rules-based checklist. Advanced analytic techniques, such as machine learning, can potentially offer improved and refined predictive capabilities. Objective: To develop and internally validate a machine learning prediction model for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) when initiating prenatal care. Study Design: We developed a prediction model using data from the prospective multisite cohort Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be (nuMoM2b) among low-risk individuals without a prior history of aspirin utilization for preeclampsia prevention. The primary outcome was the development of HDP. Random forest modeling was utilized to develop predictive models. Recursive feature elimination (RFE) was employed to create a reduced model for each outcome. Area under the curve (AUC), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and calibration curves were utilized to assess discrimination and accuracy. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the reduced model compared to existing risk factor-based algorithms. Results: Of 9,124 assessed low risk nulliparous individuals, 21% (n=1,927) developed HDP. The prediction model for HDP had satisfactory discrimination with an AUC of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.75). After RFE, a parsimonious reduced model with 30 features was created with an AUC of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.74). Variables included in the model after RFE included body mass index at the first study visit, pre-pregnancy weight, first trimester complete blood count results, and maximum systolic blood pressure at the first visit. Calibration curves for all models revealed relatively stable agreement between predicted and observed probabilities. Sensitivity analysis noted superior sensitivity (AUC 0.80 vs 0.65) and specificity (0.65 vs 0.53) of the model compared to traditional risk factor-based algorithms. Conclusion: In cohort of low-risk nulliparous pregnant individuals, a prediction model may accurately predict HDP diagnosis at the time of initiating prenatal care and aid employment of close interval monitoring and prophylactic measures earlier in 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".