Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2021

01-12-2021 | Premature Birth | Research

Machine learning guided postnatal gestational age assessment using new-born screening metabolomic data in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa

Authors: Sunil Sazawal, Kelli K. Ryckman, Sayan Das, Rasheda Khanam, Imran Nisar, Elizabeth Jasper, Arup Dutta, Sayedur Rahman, Usma Mehmood, Bruce Bedell, Saikat Deb, Nabidul Haque Chowdhury, Amina Barkat, Harshita Mittal, Salahuddin Ahmed, Farah Khalid, Rubhana Raqib, Alexander Manu, Sachiyo Yoshida, Muhammad Ilyas, Ambreen Nizar, Said Mohammed Ali, Abdullah H. Baqui, Fyezah Jehan, Usha Dhingra, Rajiv Bahl

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Babies born early and/or small for gestational age in Low and Middle-income countries (LMICs) contribute substantially to global neonatal and infant mortality. Tracking this metric is critical at a population level for informed policy, advocacy, resources allocation and program evaluation and at an individual level for targeted care. Early prenatal ultrasound examination is not available in these settings, gestational age (GA) is estimated using new-born assessment, last menstrual period (LMP) recalls and birth weight, which are unreliable. Algorithms in developed settings, using metabolic screen data, provided GA estimates within 1–2 weeks of ultrasonography-based GA. We sought to leverage machine learning algorithms to improve accuracy and applicability of this approach to LMICs settings.

Methods

This study uses data from AMANHI-ACT, a prospective pregnancy cohorts in Asia and Africa where early pregnancy ultrasonography estimated GA and birth weight are available and metabolite screening data in a subset of 1318 new-borns were also available. We utilized this opportunity to develop machine learning (ML) algorithms. Random Forest Regressor was used where data was randomly split into model-building and model-testing dataset. Mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE) were used to evaluate performance. Bootstrap procedures were used to estimate confidence intervals (CI) for RMSE and MAE. For pre-term birth identification ROC analysis with bootstrap and exact estimation of CI for area under curve (AUC) were performed.

Results

Overall model estimated GA had MAE of 5.2 days (95% CI 4.6–6.8), which was similar to performance in SGA, MAE 5.3 days (95% CI 4.6–6.2). GA was correctly estimated to within 1 week for 85.21% (95% CI 72.31–94.65). For preterm birth classification, AUC in ROC analysis was 98.1% (95% CI 96.0–99.0; p < 0.001). This model performed better than Iowa regression, AUC Difference 14.4% (95% CI 5–23.7; p = 0.002).

Conclusions

Machine learning algorithms and models applied to metabolomic gestational age dating offer a ladder of opportunity for providing accurate population-level gestational age estimates in LMICs settings. These findings also point to an opportunity for investigation of region-specific models, more focused feasible analyte models, and broad untargeted metabolome investigation.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Lawn JE, Kinney M. Preterm birth: now the leading cause of child death worldwide. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6:263ed221.CrossRef Lawn JE, Kinney M. Preterm birth: now the leading cause of child death worldwide. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6:263ed221.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference AnneCC L, Naoko K, Simon C, Stevens Gretchen A, Hannah B, Silveira Mariangela F, et al. Estimates of burden and consequences of infants born small for gestational age in low and middle income countries with INTERGROWTH-21st standard: analysis of CHERG datasets. BMJ. 2017;358:j3677. AnneCC L, Naoko K, Simon C, Stevens Gretchen A, Hannah B, Silveira Mariangela F, et al. Estimates of burden and consequences of infants born small for gestational age in low and middle income countries with INTERGROWTH-21st standard: analysis of CHERG datasets. BMJ. 2017;358:j3677.
8.
go back to reference Taylor R, Beyai S, Owens S, Denison F. The external ballard examination does not assess gestational age accurately in a rural field setting in the Gambia. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2010;95:Fa103.CrossRef Taylor R, Beyai S, Owens S, Denison F. The external ballard examination does not assess gestational age accurately in a rural field setting in the Gambia. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2010;95:Fa103.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Spinnato JA, Sibai BM, Shaver DC, Anderson GD. Inaccuracy of Dubowitz gestational age in low birth weight infants. Obstet Gynecol. 1984;63(4):491–5. 6700894.PubMed Spinnato JA, Sibai BM, Shaver DC, Anderson GD. Inaccuracy of Dubowitz gestational age in low birth weight infants. Obstet Gynecol. 1984;63(4):491–5. 6700894.PubMed
10.
go back to reference Sanders M, Allen M, Alexander GR, Yankowitz J, Graeber J, Johnson TR, et al. Gestational age assessment in preterm neonates weighing less than 1500 grams. Pediatrics. 1991;88(3):542–6.PubMed Sanders M, Allen M, Alexander GR, Yankowitz J, Graeber J, Johnson TR, et al. Gestational age assessment in preterm neonates weighing less than 1500 grams. Pediatrics. 1991;88(3):542–6.PubMed
11.
go back to reference Robillard PY, De Caunes F, Alexander GR, Sergent MP. Validity of postnatal assessments of gestational age in low birthweight infants from a Caribbean community. J Perinatol. 1992;12(2):115–9.PubMed Robillard PY, De Caunes F, Alexander GR, Sergent MP. Validity of postnatal assessments of gestational age in low birthweight infants from a Caribbean community. J Perinatol. 1992;12(2):115–9.PubMed
16.
go back to reference Murphy MSQ, Hawken S, Cheng W, Wilson LA, Lamourex M, Henderson M, et al. External validation of postnatal gestational age estimation using newborn metabolic profiles in Matlab, Bangladesh. eLife. 2019;8:e42627.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Murphy MSQ, Hawken S, Cheng W, Wilson LA, Lamourex M, Henderson M, et al. External validation of postnatal gestational age estimation using newborn metabolic profiles in Matlab, Bangladesh. eLife. 2019;8:e42627.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Sazawal et al.,2021. Using AMANHI-ACT cohorts for external validation of Iowa new-born metabolic profiles based models for postnatal Gestational age estimation. In submission. Sazawal et al.,2021. Using AMANHI-ACT cohorts for external validation of Iowa new-born metabolic profiles based models for postnatal Gestational age estimation. In submission.
30.
go back to reference Pedregosa, et al. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. JMLR. 2011;12:2825–30. Pedregosa, et al. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. JMLR. 2011;12:2825–30.
33.
go back to reference Canty A, Ripley BD. Boot: bootstrap R (S-plus) functions. R Package Version. 2020;1:3–25. Canty A, Ripley BD. Boot: bootstrap R (S-plus) functions. R Package Version. 2020;1:3–25.
38.
go back to reference Efron and Tibshirani. An introduction to the bootstrap. London: Chapman & Hall; 1993. p. 436.CrossRef Efron and Tibshirani. An introduction to the bootstrap. London: Chapman & Hall; 1993. p. 436.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference De Long et al.1988. Comparing the Areas under Two or More Correlated Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves: A Nonparametric Approach. Biometrics. Vol. 44, No. 3 (Sep., 1988). De Long et al.1988. Comparing the Areas under Two or More Correlated Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves: A Nonparametric Approach. Biometrics. Vol. 44, No. 3 (Sep., 1988).
Metadata
Title
Machine learning guided postnatal gestational age assessment using new-born screening metabolomic data in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa
Authors
Sunil Sazawal
Kelli K. Ryckman
Sayan Das
Rasheda Khanam
Imran Nisar
Elizabeth Jasper
Arup Dutta
Sayedur Rahman
Usma Mehmood
Bruce Bedell
Saikat Deb
Nabidul Haque Chowdhury
Amina Barkat
Harshita Mittal
Salahuddin Ahmed
Farah Khalid
Rubhana Raqib
Alexander Manu
Sachiyo Yoshida
Muhammad Ilyas
Ambreen Nizar
Said Mohammed Ali
Abdullah H. Baqui
Fyezah Jehan
Usha Dhingra
Rajiv Bahl
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Premature Birth
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-04067-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2021 Go to the issue