Effects of Selective Exclusion of Patients on Preterm Birth Test Performance.
Journal
Obstetrics and gynecology
ISSN: 1873-233X
Titre abrégé: Obstet Gynecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0401101
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2019
12 2019
Historique:
entrez:
26
11
2019
pubmed:
26
11
2019
medline:
4
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The need to reduce the rate of preterm delivery and the recent emergence of technologies that measure hundreds of biological analytes (eg, genomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics, proteomics; collectively referred to as "omics approaches") have led to proliferation of potential diagnostic biomarkers. On review of the literature, a concern must be raised regarding experimental design and data analysis reporting. Specifically, inaccurate performance has often been reported after selective exclusion of patients around the definition boundary of preterm birth. For example, authors may report the performance of a preterm delivery predictor by using patients who delivered early preterm compared with deliveries at 37 weeks of gestation or greater. A key principle that must be maintained during the development of any predictive test is to communicate performance for all patients for whom the test will be applicable clinically (ie, the intended-use population), which for prediction of preterm birth includes patients delivering throughout the spectrum of gestational ages, as this is what is to be predicted, and not known at the time of testing. Using biomarker data collected from the U.S.-based Proteomic Assessment of Preterm Risk clinical trial, we provide examples where the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the same test artifactually improves from 0.68 (for preterm delivery at less than 37 weeks of gestation) or 0.76 (for preterm delivery at less than 32 weeks of gestation) to 0.91 when patients who deliver late preterm are excluded. We review this phenomenon in this commentary and offer recommendations for clinicians and investigators going forward. FUNDING SOURCE:: Sera Prognostics.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31764747
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003511
pii: 00006250-201912000-00028
pmc: PMC6882533
doi:
Types de publication
Editorial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1333-1338Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Feb;105(2):267-72
pubmed: 15684150
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jul;38(1):18-31
pubmed: 21472815
Am J Perinatol. 2015 May;32(6):605-14
pubmed: 25825961
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 May;220(5):488.e1-488.e11
pubmed: 30690014
J Perinatol. 2018 Aug;38(8):963-972
pubmed: 29795450
Radiology. 1982 Apr;143(1):29-36
pubmed: 7063747
Science. 2018 Jun 8;360(6393):1133-1136
pubmed: 29880692
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 May;214(5):631.e1-631.e11
pubmed: 26874302
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 May;204(5):391.e1-8
pubmed: 21074133
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jun;196(6):576.e1-6; discussion 576.e6-7
pubmed: 17547902
Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2018 Jan;67(1):1-55
pubmed: 29775434
Lancet. 2008 Jan 5;371(9606):75-84
pubmed: 18177778
Nature. 2012 May 02;485(7396):20
pubmed: 22552070
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jan 6;162(1):W1-73
pubmed: 25560730
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Jan 31;14:56
pubmed: 24484741
N Engl J Med. 1996 Feb 29;334(9):567-72
pubmed: 8569824
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 May;214(5):633.e1-633.e24
pubmed: 26874297
AJP Rep. 2016 Oct;6(4):e407-e416
pubmed: 27917307
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
N Engl J Med. 2014 Jan 16;370(3):254-61
pubmed: 24428470