Improving preterm newborn identification in low-resource settings with machine learning.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
24
05
2018
accepted:
12
02
2019
entrez:
28
2
2019
pubmed:
28
2
2019
medline:
4
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Globally, preterm birth is the leading cause of neonatal death with estimated prevalence and associated mortality highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Accurate identification of preterm infants is important at the individual level for appropriate clinical intervention as well as at the population level for informed policy decisions and resource allocation. As early prenatal ultrasound is commonly not available in these settings, gestational age (GA) is often estimated using newborn assessment at birth. This approach assumes last menstrual period to be unreliable and birthweight to be unable to distinguish preterm infants from those that are small for gestational age (SGA). We sought to leverage machine learning algorithms incorporating maternal factors associated with SGA to improve accuracy of preterm newborn identification in LMIC settings. This study uses data from an ongoing obstetrical cohort in Lusaka, Zambia that uses early pregnancy ultrasound to estimate GA. Our intent was to identify the best set of parameters commonly available at delivery to correctly categorize births as either preterm (<37 weeks) or term, compared to GA assigned by early ultrasound as the gold standard. Trained midwives conducted a newborn assessment (<72 hours) and collected maternal and neonatal data at the time of delivery or shortly thereafter. New Ballard Score (NBS), last menstrual period (LMP), and birth weight were used individually to assign GA at delivery and categorize each birth as either preterm or term. Additionally, machine learning techniques incorporated combinations of these measures with several maternal and newborn characteristics associated with prematurity and SGA to develop GA at delivery and preterm birth prediction models. The distribution and accuracy of all models were compared to early ultrasound dating. Within our live-born cohort to date (n = 862), the median GA at delivery by early ultrasound was 39.4 weeks (IQR: 38.3-40.3). Among assessed newborns with complete data included in this analysis (n = 468), the median GA by ultrasound was 39.6 weeks (IQR: 38.4-40.3). Using machine learning, we identified a combination of six accessible parameters (LMP, birth weight, twin delivery, maternal height, hypertension in labor, and HIV serostatus) that can be used by machine learning to outperform current GA prediction methods. For preterm birth prediction, this combination of covariates correctly classified >94% of newborns and achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.9796. We identified a parsimonious list of variables that can be used by machine learning approaches to improve accuracy of preterm newborn identification. Our best-performing model included LMP, birth weight, twin delivery, HIV serostatus, and maternal factors associated with SGA. These variables are all easily collected at delivery, reducing the skill and time required by the frontline health worker to assess GA. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02738892.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Globally, preterm birth is the leading cause of neonatal death with estimated prevalence and associated mortality highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Accurate identification of preterm infants is important at the individual level for appropriate clinical intervention as well as at the population level for informed policy decisions and resource allocation. As early prenatal ultrasound is commonly not available in these settings, gestational age (GA) is often estimated using newborn assessment at birth. This approach assumes last menstrual period to be unreliable and birthweight to be unable to distinguish preterm infants from those that are small for gestational age (SGA). We sought to leverage machine learning algorithms incorporating maternal factors associated with SGA to improve accuracy of preterm newborn identification in LMIC settings.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
This study uses data from an ongoing obstetrical cohort in Lusaka, Zambia that uses early pregnancy ultrasound to estimate GA. Our intent was to identify the best set of parameters commonly available at delivery to correctly categorize births as either preterm (<37 weeks) or term, compared to GA assigned by early ultrasound as the gold standard. Trained midwives conducted a newborn assessment (<72 hours) and collected maternal and neonatal data at the time of delivery or shortly thereafter. New Ballard Score (NBS), last menstrual period (LMP), and birth weight were used individually to assign GA at delivery and categorize each birth as either preterm or term. Additionally, machine learning techniques incorporated combinations of these measures with several maternal and newborn characteristics associated with prematurity and SGA to develop GA at delivery and preterm birth prediction models. The distribution and accuracy of all models were compared to early ultrasound dating. Within our live-born cohort to date (n = 862), the median GA at delivery by early ultrasound was 39.4 weeks (IQR: 38.3-40.3). Among assessed newborns with complete data included in this analysis (n = 468), the median GA by ultrasound was 39.6 weeks (IQR: 38.4-40.3). Using machine learning, we identified a combination of six accessible parameters (LMP, birth weight, twin delivery, maternal height, hypertension in labor, and HIV serostatus) that can be used by machine learning to outperform current GA prediction methods. For preterm birth prediction, this combination of covariates correctly classified >94% of newborns and achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.9796.
CONCLUSIONS
We identified a parsimonious list of variables that can be used by machine learning approaches to improve accuracy of preterm newborn identification. Our best-performing model included LMP, birth weight, twin delivery, HIV serostatus, and maternal factors associated with SGA. These variables are all easily collected at delivery, reducing the skill and time required by the frontline health worker to assess GA.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02738892.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30811399
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198919
pii: PONE-D-18-15641
pmc: PMC6392324
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02738892']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0198919Subventions
Organisme : NIEHS NIH HHS
ID : P30 ES010126
Pays : United States
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : P2C HD050924
Pays : United States
Organisme : FIC NIH HHS
ID : D43 TW009340
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : P30 AI050410
Pays : United States
Organisme : FIC NIH HHS
ID : K01 TW010857
Pays : United States
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : T32 HD075731
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Pediatr. 1991 Sep;119(3):417-23
pubmed: 1880657
PLoS One. 2011 Feb 28;6(2):e17155
pubmed: 21386886
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2006 Jul;20(4):290-8
pubmed: 16879501
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Apr;49(4):478-486
pubmed: 27804212
JAMA. 1988 Dec 9;260(22):3306-8
pubmed: 3054193
Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. 2007;6:Article25
pubmed: 17910531
Ann Trop Paediatr. 2010;30(3):197-204
pubmed: 20828452
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2008 Nov;22(6):587-96
pubmed: 19000297
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Dec;44(6):641-8
pubmed: 25044000
Obstet Gynecol. 2011 May;117(5):1151-9
pubmed: 21508755
Pediatrics. 2011 Mar;127(3):e622-9
pubmed: 21321024
Gates Open Res. 2018 Dec 4;2:25
pubmed: 30706053
Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Dec;90(6):1593-600
pubmed: 19812173
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007 Sep;21 Suppl 2:86-96
pubmed: 17803622
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012 Sep;91(9):1061-8
pubmed: 22676243
J Pediatr. 1987 Jun;110(6):921-8
pubmed: 3585608
Cancer. 1950 Jan;3(1):32-5
pubmed: 15405679
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 Feb;136(2):180-187
pubmed: 28099725
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2S):S841-S854.e2
pubmed: 29273309
Lancet. 2012 Jun 9;379(9832):2162-72
pubmed: 22682464
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010 Sep;110(3):231-4
pubmed: 20537328
Pediatrics. 2016 Jul;138(1):
pubmed: 27313070
J Health Popul Nutr. 2009 Jun;27(3):332-8
pubmed: 19507748
J Health Popul Nutr. 2016 Oct 21;35(1):34
pubmed: 27769295
Lancet. 2013 Aug 3;382(9890):417-425
pubmed: 23746775
Lancet. 2015 Jan 31;385(9966):430-40
pubmed: 25280870
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Dec;187(6):1660-6
pubmed: 12501080
Reprod Health. 2013;10 Suppl 1:S2
pubmed: 24625129
Reprod Health. 2013;10 Suppl 1:S5
pubmed: 24625233
Pediatrics. 2017 Dec;140(6):
pubmed: 29150458
Pediatrics. 2004 Aug;114(2):372-6
pubmed: 15286219
Lancet. 2012 Feb 4;379(9814):445-52
pubmed: 22244654
Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Feb;81(2):454-60
pubmed: 15699235
Z Geburtshilfe Perinatol. 1993 May-Jun;197(3):135-40
pubmed: 8396289
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Dec;48(6):719-726
pubmed: 26924421
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011 May;113(2):131-6
pubmed: 21315347
Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Nov;88(5):1330-40
pubmed: 18996870