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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

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

Authors: Stefan Kuhle, Bryan Maguire, Hongqun Zhang, David Hamilton, Alexander C. Allen, K. S. Joseph, Victoria M. Allen

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Das UG, Sysyn GD. Abnormal fetal growth: intrauterine growth retardation, small for gestational age, large for gestational age. Pediatr Clin N Am. 2004;51:639–54. viiiCrossRef
2.
Dietz PM, Rizzo JH, England LJ, Callaghan WM, Vesco KK, Bruce FC, et al. Health care utilization in the first year of life among small- and large- for-gestational age term infants. Matern Child Health J. 2013;17:1016–24.CrossRefPubMed
3.
McCormick MC. The contribution of low birth weight to infant mortality and childhood morbidity. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:82–90.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Stotland NE, Caughey AB, Breed EM, Escobar GJ. Risk factors and obstetric complications associated with macrosomia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004;87:220–6.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Dreiseitl S, Ohno-Machado L. Logistic regression and artificial neural network classification models: a methodology review. J Biomed Inform. 2002;35:352–9.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Freund Y, Schapire RE. A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. J Comp Syst Sci. 1997;55:119–39.CrossRef
8.
Joseph KS, Fahey J. Canadian perinatal surveillance system. Validation of perinatal data in the Discharge Abstract Database of the Canadian Institute for Health Information Chronic Dis Can. 2009;29:96–100.PubMed
9.
Kramer MS, Platt RW, Wen SW, Joseph KS, Allen A, Abrahamowicz M, et al. A new and improved population-based Canadian reference for birth weight for gestational age. Pediatrics. 2001;108:E35.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Rasmussen KM, Yaktine AL. Weight gain during pregnancy: reexamining the guidelines. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2009.
11.
12.
Core R, Team. R. a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2016.
13.
RStudio Team. RStudio: integrated development environment for R. Boston, MA: RStudio, Inc.; 2015.
14.
15.
Venables WN, Ripley BD. Modern applied statistics with S. New York: Springer; 2002.CrossRef
16.
Zou H, Hastie T. Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology). 2005;67:301–20.CrossRef
17.
18.
19.
Liaw A, Wiener M. Classification and regression by randomForest. R News. 2002;2:18–22.
20.
21.
22.
Public Health Agency of Canada. Perinatal Health Indicators for Canada. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada; 2013.
23.
Papastefanou I, Souka AP, Pilalis A, Eleftheriades M, Michalitsi V, Kassanos D. First trimester prediction of small- and large-for-gestation neonates by an integrated model incorporating ultrasound parameters, biochemical indices and maternal characteristics. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91:104–11.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Lindell G, Maršál K, Källén K. Predicting risk for large-for-gestational age neonates at term: a population-based Bayesian theorem study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:398–405.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Poon LC, Karagiannis G, Stratieva V, Syngelaki A, Nicolaides KH. First-trimester prediction of macrosomia. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2011;29:139–47.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Sovio U, White IR, Dacey A, Pasupathy D, Smith GC. Screening for fetal growth restriction with universal third trimester ultrasonography in nulliparous women in the pregnancy outcome prediction (POP) study: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2015;386:2089–97.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Tarca AL, Hernandez-Andrade E, Ahn H, Garcia M, Xu Z, Korzeniewski SJ, et al. Single and serial fetal biometry to detect preterm and term small- and large-for-gestational-age neonates: a longitudinal cohort study. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0164161.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Zhang J, Kim S, Grewal J, Albert PS. Predicting large fetuses at birth: do multiple ultrasound examinations and longitudinal statistical modelling improve prediction. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2012;26:199–207.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Goto E. Ultrasound as a primary screening tool for detecting low birthweight newborns: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e4750.CrossRef
30.
Hammami A, Mazer Zumaeta A, Syngelaki A, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH. Ultrasonographic estimation of fetal weight: development of new model and assessment of performance of previous models. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;52:35–43.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Walsh JM, McAuliffe FM. Prediction and prevention of the macrosomic fetus. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;162:125–30.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Crovetto F, Triunfo S, Crispi F, Rodriguez-Sureda V, Dominguez C, Figueras F, et al. Differential performance of first-trimester screening in predicting small-for-gestational-age neonate or fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49:349-356.
33.
Seravalli V, Block-Abraham DM, Turan OM, Doyle LE, Kopelman JN, Atlas RO, et al. First-trimester prediction of small-for-gestational age neonates incorporating fetal Doppler parameters and maternal characteristics. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:261.e1–8.CrossRef
34.
Plasencia W, González Dávila E, Tetilla V, Padrón Pérez E, García Hernández JA, González González NL. First-trimester screening for large-for-gestational-age infants. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39:389–95.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Zhang S, Tjortjis C, Zeng X, Qiao H, Buchan I, Keane J. Comparing data mining methods with logistic regression in childhood obesity prediction. Inf Syst Front. 2009;11:449–60.CrossRef
36.
Brasier AR, Victor S, Ju H, Busse WW, Curran-Everett D, Bleecker E, et al. Predicting intermediate phenotypes in asthma using bronchoalveolar lavage-derived cytokines. Clin Transl Sci. 2010;3:147–57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Heaman M, Kingston D, Chalmers B, Sauve R, Lee L, Young D. Risk factors for preterm birth and small-for-gestational-age births among Canadian women. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2013;27:54–61.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Campbell MK, Cartier S, Xie B, Kouniakis G, Huang W, Han V. Determinants of small for gestational age birth at term. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2012;26:525–33.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Posthumus AG, Birnie E, van Veen MJ, Steegers EA, Bonsel GJ. An antenatal prediction model for adverse birth outcomes in an urban population: the contribution of medical and non-medical risks. Midwifery. 2016;38:78–86.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Bergmann RL, Richter R, Bergmann KE, Plagemann A, Brauer M, Dudenhausen JW. Secular trends in neonatal macrosomia in berlin: influences of potential determinants. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2003;17:244–9.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Lederman SA, Paxton A. Maternal reporting of prepregnancy weight and birth outcome: consistency and completeness compared with the clinical record. Matern Child Health J. 1998;2:123–6.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparison of logistic regression with machine learning methods for the prediction of fetal growth abnormalities: a retrospective cohort study
Authors
Stefan Kuhle
Bryan Maguire
Hongqun Zhang
David Hamilton
Alexander C. Allen
K. S. Joseph
Victoria M. Allen
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1971-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

The transition to parenthood for Australian heterosexual couples: expectations, experiences and the partner relationship

Research article

Vomiting in pregnancy is associated with a higher risk of low birth weight: a cohort study

Research article

Caesarean section rate and cost control effectiveness of case payment reform in the new cooperative medical scheme for delivery: evidence from Xi County, China

Research article

Male adolescents’ role in pregnancy prevention and unintended pregnancy in rural Victoria: health care Professional’s and educators’ perspectives

Research article

Adjunct clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean rates: systematic review

Research article

The role of community-based health services in influencing postnatal care visits in the Builsa and the West Mamprusi districts in rural Ghana