Dataset Information

Comparison of logistic regression with machine learning methods for the prediction of fetal growth abnormalities: a retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:While there is increasing interest in identifying pregnancies at risk for adverse outcome, existing prediction models have not adequately assessed population-based risks, and have been based on conventional regression methods. The objective of the current study was to identify predictors of fetal growth abnormalities using logistic regression and machine learning methods, and compare diagnostic properties in a population-based sample of infants. METHODS:Data for 30,705 singleton infants born between 2009 and 2014 to mothers resident in Nova Scotia, Canada was obtained from the Nova Scotia Atlee Perinatal Database. Primary outcomes were small (SGA) and large for gestational age (LGA). Maternal characteristics pre-pregnancy and at 26 weeks were studied as predictors. Logistic regression and select machine learning methods were used to build the models, stratified by parity. Area under the curve was used to compare the models; relative importance of predictors was compared qualitatively. RESULTS:7.9% and 13.5% of infants were SGA and LGA, respectively; 48.6% of births were to primiparous women and 51.4% were to multiparous women. Prediction of SGA and LGA was poor to fair (area under the curve 60-75%) and improved with increasing parity and pregnancy information. Smoking, previous low birthweight infant, and gestational weight gain were important predictors for SGA; pre-pregnancy body mass index, gestational weight gain, and previous macrosomic infant were the strongest predictors for LGA. CONCLUSIONS:The machine learning methods used in this study did not offer any advantage over logistic regression in the prediction of fetal growth abnormalities. Prediction accuracy for SGA and LGA based on maternal information is poor for primiparous women and fair for multiparous women.

SUBMITTER: Kuhle S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6094446 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of logistic regression with machine learning methods for the prediction of fetal growth abnormalities: a retrospective cohort study.

Kuhle Stefan S Maguire Bryan B Zhang Hongqun H Hamilton David D Allen Alexander C AC Joseph K S KS Allen Victoria M VM

BMC pregnancy and childbirth 20180815 1

<h4>Background</h4>While there is increasing interest in identifying pregnancies at risk for adverse outcome, existing prediction models have not adequately assessed population-based risks, and have been based on conventional regression methods. The objective of the current study was to identify predictors of fetal growth abnormalities using logistic regression and machine learning methods, and compare diagnostic properties in a population-based sample of infants.<h4>Methods</h4>Data for 30,705 ...[more]

PMID: 30111303

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo predict preterm birth in nulliparous women using logistic regression and machine learning.DesignPopulation-based retrospective cohort.ParticipantsNulliparous women (N = 112,963) with a singleton gestation who gave birth between 20-42 weeks gestation in Ontario hospitals from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2014.MethodsWe used data during the first and second trimesters to build logistic regression and machine learning models in a "training" sample to predict overall and spontaneous preterm birth. We assessed model performance using various measures of accuracy including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in an independent "validation" sample.ResultsDuring the first trimester, logistic regression identified 13 variables associated with preterm birth, of which the strongest predictors were diabetes (Type I: adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 4.21; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.23-5.42; Type II: AOR: 2.68; 95% CI: 2.05-3.46) and abnormal pregnancy-associated plasma protein A concentration (AOR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.80-2.30). During the first trimester, the maximum AUC was 60% (95% CI: 58-62%) with artificial neural networks in the validation sample. During the second trimester, 17 variables were significantly associated with preterm birth, among which complications during pregnancy had the highest AOR (13.03; 95% CI: 12.21-13.90). During the second trimester, the AUC increased to 65% (95% CI: 63-66%) with artificial neural networks in the validation sample. Including complications during the pregnancy yielded an AUC of 80% (95% CI: 79-81%) with artificial neural networks. All models yielded 94-97% negative predictive values for spontaneous PTB during the first and second trimesters.ConclusionAlthough artificial neural networks provided slightly higher AUC than logistic regression, prediction of preterm birth in the first trimester remained elusive. However, including data from the second trimester improved prediction to a moderate level by both logistic regression and machine learning approaches.

Project description:BackgroundPredictions in pregnancy care are complex because of interactions among multiple factors. Hence, pregnancy outcomes are not easily predicted by a single predictor using only one algorithm or modeling method.ObjectiveThis study aims to review and compare the predictive performances between logistic regression (LR) and other machine learning algorithms for developing or validating a multivariable prognostic prediction model for pregnancy care to inform clinicians' decision making.MethodsResearch articles from MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were reviewed following several guidelines for a prognostic prediction study, including a risk of bias (ROB) assessment. We report the results based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies were primarily framed as PICOTS (population, index, comparator, outcomes, timing, and setting): Population: men or women in procreative management, pregnant women, and fetuses or newborns; Index: multivariable prognostic prediction models using non-LR algorithms for risk classification to inform clinicians' decision making; Comparator: the models applying an LR; Outcomes: pregnancy-related outcomes of procreation or pregnancy outcomes for pregnant women and fetuses or newborns; Timing: pre-, inter-, and peripregnancy periods (predictors), at the pregnancy, delivery, and either puerperal or neonatal period (outcome), and either short- or long-term prognoses (time interval); and Setting: primary care or hospital. The results were synthesized by reporting study characteristics and ROBs and by random effects modeling of the difference of the logit area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of each non-LR model compared with the LR model for the same pregnancy outcomes. We also reported between-study heterogeneity by using τ2 and I2.ResultsOf the 2093 records, we included 142 studies for the systematic review and 62 studies for a meta-analysis. Most prediction models used LR (92/142, 64.8%) and artificial neural networks (20/142, 14.1%) among non-LR algorithms. Only 16.9% (24/142) of studies had a low ROB. A total of 2 non-LR algorithms from low ROB studies significantly outperformed LR. The first algorithm was a random forest for preterm delivery (logit AUROC 2.51, 95% CI 1.49-3.53; I2=86%; τ2=0.77) and pre-eclampsia (logit AUROC 1.2, 95% CI 0.72-1.67; I2=75%; τ2=0.09). The second algorithm was gradient boosting for cesarean section (logit AUROC 2.26, 95% CI 1.39-3.13; I2=75%; τ2=0.43) and gestational diabetes (logit AUROC 1.03, 95% CI 0.69-1.37; I2=83%; τ2=0.07).ConclusionsPrediction models with the best performances across studies were not necessarily those that used LR but also used random forest and gradient boosting that also performed well. We recommend a reanalysis of existing LR models for several pregnancy outcomes by comparing them with those algorithms that apply standard guidelines.Trial registrationPROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42019136106; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=136106.

Project description:Background:Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) contributes to adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. In recent decades, extensive research has been devoted to the early prediction of GDM by various methods. Machine learning methods are flexible prediction algorithms with potential advantages over conventional regression. Objective:The purpose of this study was to use machine learning methods to predict GDM and compare their performance with that of logistic regressions. Methods:We performed a retrospective, observational study including women who attended their routine first hospital visits during early pregnancy and had Down's syndrome screening at 16-20 gestational weeks in a tertiary maternity hospital in China from 2013.1.1 to 2017.12.31. A total of 22,242 singleton pregnancies were included, and 3182 (14.31%) women developed GDM. Candidate predictors included maternal demographic characteristics and medical history (maternal factors) and laboratory values at early pregnancy. The models were derived from the first 70% of the data and then validated with the next 30%. Variables were trained in different machine learning models and traditional logistic regression models. Eight common machine learning methods (GDBT, AdaBoost, LGB, Logistic, Vote, XGB, Decision Tree, and Random Forest) and two common regressions (stepwise logistic regression and logistic regression with RCS) were implemented to predict the occurrence of GDM. Models were compared on discrimination and calibration metrics. Results:In the validation dataset, the machine learning and logistic regression models performed moderately (AUC 0.59-0.74). Overall, the GBDT model performed best (AUC 0.74, 95% CI 0.71-0.76) among the machine learning methods, with negligible differences between them. Fasting blood glucose, HbA1c, triglycerides, and BMI strongly contributed to GDM. A cutoff point for the predictive value at 0.3 in the GBDT model had a negative predictive value of 74.1% (95% CI 69.5%-78.2%) and a sensitivity of 90% (95% CI 88.0%-91.7%), and the cutoff point at 0.7 had a positive predictive value of 93.2% (95% CI 88.2%-96.1%) and a specificity of 99% (95% CI 98.2%-99.4%). Conclusion:In this study, we found that several machine learning methods did not outperform logistic regression in predicting GDM. We developed a model with cutoff points for risk stratification of GDM.

Project description:BackgroundTimely and accurate prediction of delayed cerebral ischemia is critical for improving the prognosis of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Machine learning (ML) algorithms are increasingly regarded as having a higher prediction power than conventional logistic regression (LR). This study aims to construct LR and ML models and compare their prediction power on delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH).MethodsThis was a multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study that enrolled patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage from five hospitals in China. A total of 404 aSAH patients were prospectively enrolled. We randomly divided the patients into training (N = 303) and validation cohorts (N = 101) according to a ratio of 75-25%. One LR and six popular ML algorithms were used to construct models. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, balanced accuracy, confusion matrix, sensitivity, specificity, calibration curve, and Hosmer-Lemeshow test were used to assess and compare the model performance. Finally, we calculated each feature of importance.ResultsA total of 112 (27.7%) patients developed DCI. Our results showed that conventional LR with an AUC value of 0.824 (95%CI: 0.73-0.91) in the validation cohort outperformed k-nearest neighbor, decision tree, support vector machine, and extreme gradient boosting model with the AUCs of 0.792 (95%CI: 0.68-0.9, P = 0.46), 0.675 (95%CI: 0.56-0.79, P < 0.01), 0.677 (95%CI: 0.57-0.77, P < 0.01), and 0.78 (95%CI: 0.68-0.87, P = 0.50). However, random forest (RF) and artificial neural network model with the same AUC (0.858, 95%CI: 0.78-0.93, P = 0.26) were better than the LR. The accuracy and the balanced accuracy of the RF were 20.8% and 11% higher than the latter, and the RF also showed good calibration in the validation cohort (Hosmer-Lemeshow: P = 0.203). We found that the CT value of subarachnoid hemorrhage, WBC count, neutrophil count, CT value of cerebral edema, and monocyte count were the five most important features for DCI prediction in the RF model. We then developed an online prediction tool (https://dynamic-nomogram.shinyapps.io/DynNomapp-DCI/) based on important features to calculate DCI risk precisely.ConclusionsIn this multicenter study, we found that several ML methods, particularly RF, outperformed conventional LR. Furthermore, an online prediction tool based on the RF model was developed to identify patients at high risk for DCI after SAH and facilitate timely interventions.Clinical trial registrationhttp://www.chictr.org.cn, Unique identifier: ChiCTR2100044448.

Dataset Information

Comparison of logistic regression with machine learning methods for the prediction of fetal growth abnormalities: a retrospective cohort study.

Publications

Comparison of logistic regression with machine learning methods for the prediction of fetal growth abnormalities: a retrospective cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets