| Literature DB >> 35097113 |
Asma Sookhakian1, Maryam Zahed2, Hamidreza Pakshir3, Shabnam Ajami3.
Abstract
RESULTS: A strong positive correlation was found between CA and cervical stages (r = 0.836, P < 0.001). Based on the regression model analysis, the model which combined IGF-1, ALP, and CA provided the best prediction at P < 0.001 with McFadden's pseudo R 2 value of 0.552 for cervical stage prediction and 0.646 for growth phase prediction. In particular, its predictive ability for the prepubertal, pubertal, and postpubertal growth phases was 95%, 80%, and 90%, respectively.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35097113 PMCID: PMC8799341 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2390865
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Chronological age (CA) descriptive statistics at different cervical stages (n = 55).
| Cervical stage |
| CA (years) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Min-Max | 95% CI for mean (LB-UB) | ||
| 1 | 9 | 9.89 ± 1.88 | 7.0–12.5 | 8.44-11.34 |
| 2 | 11 | 10.68 ± 0.96 | 9.0-12.0 | 10.04–11.32 |
| 3 | 9 | 12.39 ± 1.54 | 10.0–14.0 | 11.21–13.57 |
| 4 | 6 | 12.33 ± 0.52 | 12.0–13.0 | 11.79–12.88 |
| 5 | 9 | 14.17 ± 1.98 | 11.0–17.5 | 12.64–15.69 |
| 6 | 11 | 17.50 ± 1.80 | 15.0-20 | 16.29–18.71 |
LB = lower bond; UB = upper bond.
Figure 1Distribution of cervical stages in different age groups.
Figure 2Chronological age (CA) trend in relation to the cervical stages.
Figure 3Chronological age (CA) trend in female and male groups in relation to the cervical stages.
Fit statistics of multinomial logit models for cervical stage prediction.
| Model | Likelihood-ratio chi-square statistic ( | df |
| Correct classification rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1: (CA) | 74.653 (<0.001)∗ | 5 | 0.383 | 50.9 |
| Model 2: (IGF-1) | 28.087 (<0.001)∗ | 5 | 0.144 | 38.2 |
| Model 3: (ALP) | 22.335 (<0.001)∗ | 5 | 0.114 | 34.5 |
| Model 4: (CA+IGF-1) | 91.958 (<0.001)∗ | 10 | 0.471 | 58.2 |
| Model 5: (CA+ALP) | 91.784 (<0.001)∗ | 10 | 0.470 | 65.5 |
| Model 6: (IGF-1+ALP) | 46.484 (<0.001)∗ | 10 | 0.238 | 47.3 |
| Model 7: (CA+IGF-1+ALP) | 107.802 (<0.001)∗ | 15 | 0.552 | 70.9 |
∗ P < 0.05 considered significant.
Fit statistics of multinomial logit models for growth phase prediction.
| Model | Likelihood-ratio chi-square statistic ( | df |
| Correct classification rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1: (CA) | 59.493 (<0.001∗) | 2 | 0.496 | 76.4 |
| Model 2: (IGF-1) | 21.184 (<0.001∗) | 2 | 0.177 | 60 |
| Model 3: (ALP) | 14.135 (=0.001∗) | 2 | 0.118 | 56.4 |
| Model 4: (CA+IGF-1) | 69.888 (<0.001∗) | 4 | 0.583 | 80 |
| Model 5: (CA+ALP) | 69.067 (<0.001∗) | 4 | 0.576 | 83.6 |
| Model 6: (IGF-1+ALP) | 30.526 (<0.001∗) | 4 | 0.255 | 61.8 |
| Model 7: (CA+IGF-1+ALP) | 77.497 (<0.001∗) | 6 | 0.646 | 89.1 |
∗ P < 0.05 considered significant.
Correct classification rates of Model 7 for growth phase prediction.
| Observed | Predicted | Correct classification rate (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prepubertal | Pubertal | Postpubertal | ||
| Prepubertal | 19 | 1 | 0 | 95 |
| Pubertal | 1 | 12 | 2 | 80 |
| Postpubertal | 1 | 1 | 18 | 90 |
Estimated parameters in Model 7 for cervical stage prediction.
| Logit |
| Intercept ( | ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA | IGF-1 | ALP | |||
| Log ( | 1 | 56.235 | -3.918 | -3.101 | -0.035 |
| Log ( | 2 | 46.951 | -3.437 | -0.334 | -0.001 |
| Log ( | 3 | 22.738 | -2.364 | 3.041 | 0.154 |
| Log ( | 4 | 29.901 | -2.180 | 0.386 | 0.031 |
| Log ( | 5 | 22.605 | -1.371 | -1.409 | 0.020 |
∗The baseline category was CS6 (J = 6).
Estimated parameters in Model 7 for growth phase prediction.
| Logit |
| Intercept ( | ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA | IGF-1 | ALP | |||
| Log ( | 1 | 29.002 | -2.318 | 0.437 | -0.035 |
| Log ( | 2 | 8.207 | -1.026 | 2.390 | 0.054 |
∗The baseline category was postpubertal growth phase (J = 3).