Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 3/2011

Open Access 01-03-2011 | Materno-fetal Medicine

A new algorithm for improving fetal weight estimation from ultrasound data at term

Authors: W. Siggelkow, M. Schmidt, C. Skala, D. Boehm, S. von Forstner, H. Koelbl, A. Tresch

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 3/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this retrospective study was to find a method of improving the accuracy of fetal birth weight estimation on the basis of traditional ultrasonographic measurements of the head, thorax, and femur at term. In this context, we analyzed a novel regression method comparing to existing algorithms.

Methods

The delivery records of two hospitals were searched for women who delivered macrosomic infants, and the patients’ medical records were retrospectively reviewed in order to derive clinical and ultrasonographic data at term. A total of 223 patients with macrosomic infants (birth weight > 4,000 g) were identified. These patients were complemented by data for 212 women who had ultrasound fetal assessments of less than 4,000 g. We used the method of isotonic regression to construct a birth weight prediction function that increases monotonically with each of the input variables and which minimizes the empirical quadratic loss.

Results

A suspicion of macrosomia was based on a history of macrosomia, fundal height, and sonographic weight estimation >4,000 g. The mean period between ultrasound weight estimation and delivery was 7.2 days. The ability of the biometric algorithms developed to predict fetal weight at term ranged between a mean absolute error of 312 and 344 g, given a confidence interval of 95%. We demonstrate that predictions of birth weight on the basis of ultrasound data can be improved significantly, if an isotonic regression model is used instead of a linear regression model.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that ultrasound detection of macrosomia can be improved using the isotonic regression method.
Literature
1.
Chauhan SP et al (2000) Antepartum detection of macrosomic fetus: clinical versus sonographic, including soft-tissue measurements. Obstet Gynecol 95(5):639–642CrossRefPubMed
2.
Chauhan SP et al (1993) Intrapartum prediction of birth weight: clinical versus sonographic estimation based on femur length alone. Obstet Gynecol 81(5 (Pt 1)):695–697PubMed
3.
Nahum GG, Stanislaw H (2000) Prediction of birth weight by ultrasound in the third trimester. Obstet Gynecol 96(2):319–320CrossRefPubMed
4.
Shepard MJ, Hellenbrand KG, Bracken MB (1986) Proportional weight gain and complications of pregnancy, labor, and delivery in healthy women of normal prepregnant stature. Am J Obstet Gynecol 155(5):947–954PubMed
5.
Combs CA et al (2000) Sonographic EFW and macrosomia: is there an optimum formula to predict diabetic fetal macrosomia? J Matern Fetal Med 9(1):55–61CrossRefPubMed
6.
Larciprete G, Di Pierro G, Barbati G, Deaibess T, Jarvis S, Valensise H, Romanini ME, Gioia S, Arduini D (2008) Could birthweight prediction models be improved by adding fetal subcutaneous tissue thickness? J Obstet Gynecol Res 34:18–26
7.
Larciprete G, Valensise H, Barbati G, Di Pierro G, Jarvis S, Deaibess T, Gioia S, Giacomello F, Cirese E, Arduini D (2007) Ultrasound-determined fetal subcutaneous tissue thickness for a birthweight prediction model. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 33:635–640
8.
Scioscia M, Scioscia F, Vimercati A, Caradonna F, Nardelli C, Pinto LR, Selvaggi LE (2008) Estimation of the fetal weight by measurement of fetal thigh soft-tissue thickness in the late third trimester. Ultrsound Obstet Gynecol 31:314–320
9.
Nahum GG, Stanislaw H (2003) Ultrasonographic prediction of term birth weight: how accurate is it? Am J Obstet Gynecol 188(2):566–574CrossRefPubMed
10.
Chauhan SP et al (2000) Sonographic measurements of fetal parts to predict pulmonary maturity among twins and singletons. J Miss State Med Assoc 41(3):516–520PubMed
11.
Hendrix NW, Grady CS, Chauhan SP (2000) Clinical vs. sonographic estimate of birth weight in term parturients. A randomized clinical trial. J Reprod Med 45(4):317–322PubMed
12.
Pressman EK et al (2000) Prediction of birth weight by ultrasound in the third trimester. Obstet Gynecol 95(4):502–506CrossRefPubMed
13.
Sokol RJ et al (2000) Correctly identifying the macrosomic fetus: improving ultrasonography-based prediction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182(6):1489–1495CrossRefPubMed
14.
Weiner Z et al (2002) Clinical and ultrasonographic weight estimation in large for gestational age fetus. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 105(1):20–24CrossRefPubMed
15.
Hadlock FP et al (1984) Sonographic estimation of fetal weight. The value of femur length in addition to head and abdomen measurements. Radiology 150(2):535–540PubMed
16.
Hadlock FP et al (1985) Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements—a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 151(3):333–337PubMed
17.
Barlow RE, Bartholomew DJ, Bremner JM, Brunk HD (1972) Statistical inference under order restrictions: the theory and application of isotonic regression. Wiley, New York
18.
Kruskal JB (1964) Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: a numerical method. Psychometrica 29(2):115–129CrossRef
19.
Johnstone IM, Silvermann BW (2005) Ebayes Thresh: R programs for empirical Bayes thresholding. J Statist Softw 12(8):1–38
20.
Pates JA, McIntire DD, Casey BM, Leveno KJ (2008) Predicting macrosomia. J Ultrasound Med 27:39–43
21.
Jazayeri A et al (1999) Macrosomia prediction using ultrasound fetal abdominal circumference of 35 centimeters or more. Obstet Gynecol 93(4):523–526CrossRefPubMed
22.
Henrichs C et al (2003) Detecting fetal macrosomia with abdominal circumference alone. J Reprod Med 48(5):339–342PubMed
23.
Higginbottom J et al (1975) Estimation of fetal weight from ultrasonic measurement of trunk circumference. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 82(9):698–701CrossRefPubMed
24.
Hsieh FJ et al (1987) Computer-assisted analysis for prediction of fetal weight by ultrasound-comparison of biparietal diameter (BPD), abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL). Taiwan Yi Xue Hui Za Zhi 86(9):957–964PubMed
25.
Humphries J et al (2002) Sonographic estimate of birth weight: relative accuracy of sonographers versus maternal-fetal medicine specialists. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 11(2):108–112PubMed
26.
Shepard MJ et al (1996) Maternal body mass, proportional weight gain, and fetal growth in parous women. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 10(2):207–219CrossRefPubMed
27.
Shinozuka N et al (1987) Formulas for fetal weight estimation by ultrasound measurements based on neonatal specific gravities and volumes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 157(5):1140–1145PubMed
28.
Warda A et al (1986) Evaluation of fetal thigh circumference measurements: a comparative ultrasound and anatomical study. J Clin Ultrasound 14(2):99–103CrossRefPubMed
29..
Warsof SL et al (1977) The estimation of fetal weight by computer-assisted analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 128(8):881–892PubMed
30.
Gerhard IVB, Runnebaum B, Klinga K, Haller U, Kubli F (1987) Weight percentile at birth. Prediction by endocrinological and sonographic measurements. Percentile at birth. II. Prediction by endocrinological and sonographic measurements. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 26(4):313CrossRefPubMed
31.
Göttlicher SMJ (1988) Is a quantitatively exact prediction of expected birth weight possible using the sonographically determined parameters of biparietal diameter, thoracic diameter and length of the humerus? A prospective study of 285 pregnant patients birth weight possible using the sonographically determined parameters of biparietal diameter, thoracic diameter and length of the humerus? A prospective study of 285 pregnant patients. Zentralbl Gynakol 110(19):1206–1212PubMed
Metadata
Title
A new algorithm for improving fetal weight estimation from ultrasound data at term
Authors
W. Siggelkow
M. Schmidt
C. Skala
D. Boehm
S. von Forstner
H. Koelbl
A. Tresch
Publication date
01-03-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 3/2011
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-010-1390-8

Other articles of this Issue 3/2011

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 3/2011 Go to the issue

General Gynecology

Cervical polyps: evaluation of routine removal and need for accompanying D&C

Gynecologic Oncology

A population-based study of selected demographic characteristics of Israeli-Jewish women with cervical squamous cell carcinoma

Materno-fetal Medicine

Progesterone effects on preterm birth in high-risk pregnancies: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

Letter to the Editor

Pseudoaneurysm: a chameleon in obstetrical emergency practice

Short Communication

A case of postpartum cerebral angiitis and review of the literature

Letter to the Editor

Are ATPase6 polymorphisms associated with primary ovarian insufficiency?