Prediction of postpartum hemorrhage using traditional statistical analysis and a machine learning approach.
analysis
machine learning
postpartum hemorrhage
risk factors
Journal
AJOG global reports
ISSN: 2666-5778
Titre abrégé: AJOG Glob Rep
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101777907
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2023
May 2023
Historique:
entrez:
20
3
2023
pubmed:
21
3
2023
medline:
21
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Early detection of postpartum hemorrhage risk factors by healthcare providers during pregnancy and the postpartum period may allow healthcare providers to act to prevent it. Developing a prediction model that incorporates several risk factors and accurately calculates the overall risk for postpartum hemorrhage is necessary. This study used a traditional analytical approach and a machine learning model to predict postpartum hemorrhage. Women who gave birth at the Khaleej-e-Fars Hospital in Bandar Abbas, Iran, were evaluated retrospectively between January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2022. These pregnant women were divided into 2 groups, namely those who had postpartum hemorrhage and those who did not. We used 2 approaches for the analysis. At the first level, we used the traditional analysis methods. Demographic factors, maternal comorbidities, and obstetrical factors were compared between the 2 groups. A bivariate logistic regression analysis of the risk factors for postpartum hemorrhage was done to estimate the crude odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals. In the second level, we used machine learning approaches to predict postpartum hemorrhage. Of the 8888 deliveries, we identified 163 women with recorded postpartum hemorrhage, giving a frequency of 1.8%. According to a traditional analysis, factors associated with an increased risk for postpartum hemorrhage in a bivariate logistic regression analysis were living in a rural area (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.98); primiparity (odds ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.90-4.75); mild to moderate anemia (odds ratio, 5.94; 95% confidence interval 2.81-8.34); severe anemia (odds ratio, 6.01; 95% confidence interval 3.89-11.09); abnormal placentation (odds ratio, 7.66; 95% confidence interval, 2.81-17.34); fetal macrosomia (odds ratio, 8.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-14.47); shoulder dystocia (odds ratio, 7.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-13.99); vacuum delivery (odds ratio, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-5.98); cesarean delivery (odds ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-3.79); and general anesthesia during cesarean delivery (odds ratio, 7.66; 95 % confidence interval, 3.11-9.36). According to machine learning analysis, the top 5 algorithms were XGBoost regression (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 99%), XGBoost classification (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 98%), LightGBM (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 94%), random forest regression (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 86%), and linear regression (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 78%). However, after considering all performance parameters, the XGBoost classification was found to be the best model to predict postpartum hemorrhage. The importance of the variables in the linear regression model, similar to traditional analysis methods, revealed that macrosomia, general anesthesia, anemia, shoulder dystocia, and abnormal placentation were considered to be weighted factors, whereas XGBoost classification considered living residency, parity, cesarean delivery, education, and induced labor to be weighted factors. Risk factors for postpartum hemorrhage can be identified using traditional statistical analysis and a machine learning model. Machine learning models were a credible approach for improving postpartum hemorrhage prediction with high accuracy. More research should be conducted to analyze appropriate variables and prepare big data to determine the best model.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Early detection of postpartum hemorrhage risk factors by healthcare providers during pregnancy and the postpartum period may allow healthcare providers to act to prevent it. Developing a prediction model that incorporates several risk factors and accurately calculates the overall risk for postpartum hemorrhage is necessary.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study used a traditional analytical approach and a machine learning model to predict postpartum hemorrhage.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Women who gave birth at the Khaleej-e-Fars Hospital in Bandar Abbas, Iran, were evaluated retrospectively between January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2022. These pregnant women were divided into 2 groups, namely those who had postpartum hemorrhage and those who did not. We used 2 approaches for the analysis. At the first level, we used the traditional analysis methods. Demographic factors, maternal comorbidities, and obstetrical factors were compared between the 2 groups. A bivariate logistic regression analysis of the risk factors for postpartum hemorrhage was done to estimate the crude odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals. In the second level, we used machine learning approaches to predict postpartum hemorrhage.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the 8888 deliveries, we identified 163 women with recorded postpartum hemorrhage, giving a frequency of 1.8%. According to a traditional analysis, factors associated with an increased risk for postpartum hemorrhage in a bivariate logistic regression analysis were living in a rural area (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.98); primiparity (odds ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.90-4.75); mild to moderate anemia (odds ratio, 5.94; 95% confidence interval 2.81-8.34); severe anemia (odds ratio, 6.01; 95% confidence interval 3.89-11.09); abnormal placentation (odds ratio, 7.66; 95% confidence interval, 2.81-17.34); fetal macrosomia (odds ratio, 8.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-14.47); shoulder dystocia (odds ratio, 7.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-13.99); vacuum delivery (odds ratio, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-5.98); cesarean delivery (odds ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-3.79); and general anesthesia during cesarean delivery (odds ratio, 7.66; 95 % confidence interval, 3.11-9.36). According to machine learning analysis, the top 5 algorithms were XGBoost regression (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 99%), XGBoost classification (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 98%), LightGBM (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 94%), random forest regression (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 86%), and linear regression (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 78%). However, after considering all performance parameters, the XGBoost classification was found to be the best model to predict postpartum hemorrhage. The importance of the variables in the linear regression model, similar to traditional analysis methods, revealed that macrosomia, general anesthesia, anemia, shoulder dystocia, and abnormal placentation were considered to be weighted factors, whereas XGBoost classification considered living residency, parity, cesarean delivery, education, and induced labor to be weighted factors.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Risk factors for postpartum hemorrhage can be identified using traditional statistical analysis and a machine learning model. Machine learning models were a credible approach for improving postpartum hemorrhage prediction with high accuracy. More research should be conducted to analyze appropriate variables and prepare big data to determine the best model.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36935935
doi: 10.1016/j.xagr.2023.100185
pii: S2666-5778(23)00026-6
pmc: PMC10020099
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100185Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors.
Références
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 May;188(5):1372-8
pubmed: 12748514
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022 Oct;306(4):1015-1025
pubmed: 35171347
Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Jun;2(6):e323-33
pubmed: 25103301
Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jun;113(6):1313-1319
pubmed: 19461428
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017 Jan;295(1):75-80
pubmed: 27683268
Pan Afr Med J. 2020 Dec 11;37:336
pubmed: 33738024
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013 Oct;57(9):1092-102
pubmed: 24003971
Mymensingh Med J. 2010 Apr;19(2):282-9
pubmed: 20395927
CMAJ. 2016 Dec 6;188(17-18):E456-E465
pubmed: 27672220
Med Sci Monit. 2012 Sep;18(9):PH77-81
pubmed: 22936200
Lancet Glob Health. 2013 Jul;1(1):e16-25
pubmed: 25103581
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Mar;53(1):147-56
pubmed: 20142652
Sci Rep. 2021 Nov 19;11(1):22620
pubmed: 34799687
BMJ Glob Health. 2016 Apr 7;1(1):e000026
pubmed: 28588921
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022 Jan 12;29(2):296-305
pubmed: 34405866
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021 Aug;47(8):2565-2576
pubmed: 34002432
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Jan 10;17(1):17
pubmed: 28068990
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2008 Dec;22(6):999-1012
pubmed: 18819848
Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Apr;135(4):935-944
pubmed: 32168227
Sci Rep. 2021 Apr 28;11(1):9125
pubmed: 33911149
Anesth Analg. 2010 May 1;110(5):1368-73
pubmed: 20237047
Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Dec;122(6):1288-94
pubmed: 24201690