Literature DB >> 33608801

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: machine-learning algorithm to predict elevated bile acid based on clinical and laboratory data.

Aula Asali1,2, Dorit Ravid3,4, Hila Shalev5, Liron David4, Eran Yogev6, Sabina Sapunar Yogev6, Ron Schonman3,4, Tal Biron-Shental3,4, Netanella Miller3,4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Applying machine-learning models to clinical and laboratory features of women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) and creating algorithm to identify these patients without bile acid measurements.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 336 pregnant women with a chief complaint of pruritis without rash during the second/third trimesters. Data extracted included: demographics, obstetric, clinical and laboratory features. The primary outcome was an elevated bile acid measurement  ≥ 10 µmol/L, regardless of liver enzyme levels. We used different machine-learning models and statistical regression to predict elevated bile acid levels.
RESULTS: Among 336 women who complained about pruritis, 167 had bile acids  ≥ 10 µmol/L and 169 had normal levels. Women with elevated bile acids were older than those with normal levels (p = 0.001), higher parity (p = 0.001), and higher glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase ( GOT) (p = 0.001) and glutamic-pyruvic transaminase (GPT) levels (p = 0.001). Using machine-learning models, the XGB Classifier model was the most accurate (area under the curve (AUC), 0.9) followed by the K-neighbors model (AUC, 0.86); and then the Support Vector Classification (SVC) model (AUC, 0.82). The model with the lowest predicative ability was the logistic regression (AUC, 0.72). The maximum sensitivity of the XGB model was 86% and specificity 75%. The best predictive parameters of the XGB model were elevated GOT (Importance 0.17), elevated GPT (Importance 0.16), family history of bile disease (0.16) and previous pregnancy with ICP (0.13).
CONCLUSION: Machine-learning models using clinical data may predict ICP more accurately than logistic regression does. Using detection algorithms derived from these techniques may improve identification of ICP, especially when bile acid testing is not available.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bile acid; Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy; Liver enzymes; Machine learning

Year:  2021        PMID: 33608801     DOI: 10.1007/s00404-021-05994-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet        ISSN: 0932-0067            Impact factor:   2.344


  5 in total

1.  Pregnancy outcome in women with pruritus gravidarum.

Authors:  Eyal Sheiner; Iris Ohel; Amalia Levy; Miriam Katz
Journal:  J Reprod Med       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 0.142

2.  Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy and comorbidity: A 44-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Suvi-Tuulia Hämäläinen; Kaisa Turunen; Kari J Mattila; Elise Kosunen; Markku Sumanen
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  2019-08-14       Impact factor: 3.636

3.  Pregnancy outcome with intrahepatic cholestasis.

Authors:  S Heinonen; P Kirkinen
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Perinatal outcomes of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy in twin versus singleton pregnancies: is plurality associated with adverse outcomes?

Authors:  Linoy Batsry; Keren Zloto; Anat Kalter; Micha Baum; Shali Mazaki-Tovi; Yoav Yinon
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2019-07-25       Impact factor: 2.344

5.  Total serum bile acids or serum bile acid profile, or both, for the diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy.

Authors:  Cristina Manzotti; Giovanni Casazza; Tea Stimac; Dimitrinka Nikolova; Christian Gluud
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-07-05
  5 in total
  1 in total

1.  Artificial intelligence in obstetrics.

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

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.