Literature DB >> 31587401

Development and validation of a machine-learning model for prediction of shoulder dystocia.

A Tsur1,2, L Batsry2, S Toussia-Cohen2, M G Rosenstein3, O Barak4, Y Brezinov4, R Yoeli-Ullman2, E Sivan2, M Sirota5, M L Druzin1, D K Stevenson6, Y J Blumenfeld1, D Aran5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To develop a machine-learning (ML) model for prediction of shoulder dystocia (ShD) and to externally validate the model's predictive accuracy and potential clinical efficacy in optimizing the use of Cesarean delivery in the context of suspected macrosomia.
METHODS: We used electronic health records (EHR) from the Sheba Medical Center in Israel to develop the model (derivation cohort) and EHR from the University of California San Francisco Medical Center to validate the model's accuracy and clinical efficacy (validation cohort). Subsequent to application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, the derivation cohort included 686 singleton vaginal deliveries, of which 131 were complicated by ShD, and the validation cohort included 2584 deliveries, of which 31 were complicated by ShD. For each of these deliveries, we collected maternal and neonatal delivery outcomes coupled with maternal demographics, obstetric clinical data and sonographic fetal biometry. Biometric measurements and their derived estimated fetal weight were adjusted (aEFW) according to gestational age at delivery. A ML pipeline was utilized to develop the model.
RESULTS: In the derivation cohort, the ML model provided significantly better prediction than did the current clinical paradigm based on fetal weight and maternal diabetes: using nested cross-validation, the area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC) of the model was 0.793 ± 0.041, outperforming aEFW combined with diabetes (AUC = 0.745 ± 0.044, P = 1e-16 ). The following risk modifiers had a positive beta that was > 0.02, i.e. they increased the risk of ShD: aEFW (beta = 0.164), pregestational diabetes (beta = 0.047), prior ShD (beta = 0.04), female fetal sex (beta = 0.04) and adjusted abdominal circumference (beta = 0.03). The following risk modifiers had a negative beta that was < -0.02, i.e. they were protective of ShD: adjusted biparietal diameter (beta = -0.08) and maternal height (beta = -0.03). In the validation cohort, the model outperformed aEFW combined with diabetes (AUC = 0.866 vs 0.784, P = 0.00007). Additionally, in the validation cohort, among the subgroup of 273 women carrying a fetus with aEFW ≥ 4000 g, the aEFW had no predictive power (AUC = 0.548), and the model performed significantly better (0.775, P = 0.0002). A risk-score threshold of 0.5 stratified 42.9% of deliveries to the high-risk group, which included 90.9% of ShD cases and all cases accompanied by maternal or newborn complications. A more specific threshold of 0.7 stratified only 27.5% of the deliveries to the high-risk group, which included 63.6% of ShD cases and all those accompanied by newborn complications.
CONCLUSION: We developed a ML model for prediction of ShD and, in a different cohort, externally validated its performance. The model predicted ShD better than did estimated fetal weight either alone or combined with maternal diabetes, and was able to stratify the risk of ShD and neonatal injury in the context of suspected macrosomia.
Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EHR; anthropometry; artificial intelligence; biometry; macrosomia

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31587401     DOI: 10.1002/uog.21878

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  7 in total

1.  The association between an oral glucose tolerance test performed at term pregnancy and obstetric outcomes.

Authors:  Oren Barak; Israel Yoles; Tamar Wainstock; Noa Gadassi; Tal Schiller; Edi Vaisbuch
Journal:  Obstet Med       Date:  2021-11-11

2.  Accuracy of Fetal Biacromial Diameter and Derived Ultrasonographic Parameters to Predict Shoulder Dystocia: A Prospective Observational Study.

Authors:  Marco La Verde; Pasquale De Franciscis; Clelia Torre; Angela Celardo; Giulia Grassini; Rossella Papa; Stefano Cianci; Carlo Capristo; Maddalena Morlando; Gaetano Riemma
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 4.614

3.  Artificial intelligence in obstetrics.

Authors:  Ki Hoon Ahn; Kwang-Sig Lee
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Sci       Date:  2021-12-15

4.  Prediction of Emergency Cesarean Section Using Machine Learning Methods: Development and External Validation of a Nationwide Multicenter Dataset in Republic of Korea.

Authors:  Jeong Ha Wie; Se Jin Lee; Sae Kyung Choi; Yun Sung Jo; Han Sung Hwang; Mi Hye Park; Yeon Hee Kim; Jae Eun Shin; Ki Cheol Kil; Su Mi Kim; Bong Suk Choi; Hanul Hong; Hyun-Joo Seol; Hye-Sung Won; Hyun Sun Ko; Sunghun Na
Journal:  Life (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-18

5.  Machine learning is an effective method to predict the 90-day prognosis of patients with transient ischemic attack and minor stroke.

Authors:  Si-Ding Chen; Jia You; Xiao-Meng Yang; Hong-Qiu Gu; Xin-Ying Huang; Huan Liu; Jian-Feng Feng; Yong Jiang; Yong-Jun Wang
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2022-07-16       Impact factor: 4.612

6.  Does the Porter formula hold its promise? A weight estimation formula for macrosomic fetuses put to the test.

Authors:  Christoph Weiss; Sabine Enengl; Simon Hermann Enzelsberger; Richard Bernhard Mayer; Peter Oppelt
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2019-12-27       Impact factor: 2.344

7.  Introduction to artificial intelligence in ultrasound imaging in obstetrics and gynecology.

Authors:  L Drukker; J A Noble; A T Papageorghiou
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 7.299

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.