Machine learning-enabled maternal risk assessment for women with pre-eclampsia (the PIERS-ML model): a modelling study.

Affecting 2-4% of pregnancies, pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal death and morbidity worldwide. Using routinely available data, we aimed to develop and validate a novel machine learning-based and clinical setting-responsive time-of-disease model to rule out and rule in adverse maternal outcomes in women presenting with pre-eclampsia. We used health system, demographic, and clinical data from the day of first assessment with pre-eclampsia to predict a Delphi-derived composite outcome of maternal mortality or severe morbidity within 2 days. Machine learning methods, multiple imputation, and ten-fold cross-validation were used to fit models on a development dataset (75% of combined published data of 8843 patients from 11 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries). Validation was undertaken on the unseen 25%, and an additional external validation was performed in 2901 inpatient women admitted with pre-eclampsia to two hospitals in south-east England. Predictive risk accuracy was determined by area-under-the-receiver-operator characteristic (AUROC), and risk categories were data-driven and defined by negative (-LR) and positive (+LR) likelihood ratios. Of 8843 participants, 590 (6·7%) developed the composite adverse maternal outcome within 2 days, 813 (9·2%) within 7 days, and 1083 (12·2%) at any time. An 18-variable random forest-based prediction model, PIERS-ML, was accurate (AUROC 0·80 [95% CI 0·76-0·84] vs the currently used logistic regression model, fullPIERS: AUROC 0·68 [0·63-0·74]) and categorised women into very low risk (-LR 0·2 and +LR 10·0; 11 [1·0%] women). Adverse maternal event rates were 0% for very low risk, 2% for low risk, 5% for moderate risk, 26% for high risk, and 91% for very high risk within 48 h. The 2901 women in the external validation dataset were accurately classified as being at very low risk (0% with outcomes), low risk (1%), moderate risk (4%), high risk (33%), or very high risk (67%). The PIERS-ML model improves identification of women with pre-eclampsia who are at lowest and greatest risk of severe adverse maternal outcomes within 2 days of assessment, and can support provision of accurate guidance to women, their families, and their maternity care providers. University of Strathclyde Diversity in Data Linkage Centre for Doctoral Training, the Fetal Medicine Foundation, The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

Temporal and external validation of the fullPIERS model for the prediction of adverse maternal outcomes in women with pre-eclampsia

The fullPIERS model is a risk prediction model developed to predict adverse maternal outcomes within 48 h for women admitted with pre-eclampsia. External validation of the model is required before implementation for clinical use. We assessed the temporal and external validity of the fullPIERS model in high income settings using five cohorts collected between 2003 and 2016, from tertiary hospitals in Canada, the United States of America, Finland and the United Kingdom. The cohorts were grouped into three datasets for assessing the primary external, and temporal validity, and broader transportability of the model. The predicted risks of developing an adverse maternal outcome were calculated using the model equation and model performance was evaluated based on discrimination, calibration, and stratification. Our study included a total of 2429 women, with an adverse maternal outcome rate of 6.7%, 6.6%, and 7.0% in the primary external, temporal, and combined (broader) validation cohorts, respectively. The model had good discrimination in all datasets: 0.81 (95%CI 0.75-0.86), 0.82 (95%CI 0.76-0.87), and 0.75 (95%CI 0.71-0.80) for the primary external, temporal, and broader validation datasets, respectively. Calibration was best for the temporal cohort but poor in the broader validation dataset The likelihood ratios estimated to rule in adverse maternal outcomes were high at a cut-off of >= 30% in all datasets. The fullPIERS model is temporally and externally valid and will be useful in the management of women with pre-eclampsia in high income settings although model recalibration is required to improve performance, specifically in the broader healthcare settings.Peer reviewe

Machine learning-enabled maternal risk assessment for women with pre-eclampsia (the PIERS-ML model) : a modelling study

Background Affecting 2–4% of pregnancies, pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal death and morbidity worldwide. Using routinely available data, we aimed to develop and validate a novel machine learning-based and clinical setting-responsive time-of-disease model to rule out and rule in adverse maternal outcomes in women presenting with pre-eclampsia. Methods We used health system, demographic, and clinical data from the day of first assessment with pre-eclampsia to predict a Delphi-derived composite outcome of maternal mortality or severe morbidity within 2 days. Machine learning methods, multiple imputation, and ten-fold cross-validation were used to fit models on a development dataset (75% of combined published data of 8843 patients from 11 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries). Validation was undertaken on the unseen 25%, and an additional external validation was performed in 2901 inpatient women admitted with pre-eclampsia to two hospitals in south-east England. Predictive risk accuracy was determined by area-under-the-receiver-operator characteristic (AUROC), and risk categories were data-driven and defined by negative (–LR) and positive (+LR) likelihood ratios. Findings Of 8843 participants, 590 (6·7%) developed the composite adverse maternal outcome within 2 days, 813 (9·2%) within 7 days, and 1083 (12·2%) at any time. An 18-variable random forest-based prediction model, PIERS-ML, was accurate (AUROC 0·80 [95% CI 0·76–0·84] vs the currently used logistic regression model, fullPIERS: AUROC 0·68 [0·63–0·74]) and categorised women into very low risk (–LR 0·2 and +LR 10·0; 11 [1·0%] women). Adverse maternal event rates were 0% for very low risk, 2% for low risk, 5% for moderate risk, 26% for high risk, and 91% for very high risk within 48 h. The 2901 women in the external validation dataset were accurately classified as being at very low risk (0% with outcomes), low risk (1%), moderate risk (4%), high risk (33%), or very high risk (67%). Interpretation The PIERS-ML model improves identification of women with pre-eclampsia who are at lowest and greatest risk of severe adverse maternal outcomes within 2 days of assessment, and can support provision of accurate guidance to women, their families, and their maternity care providers

Impact of Covid-19 on risk of severe maternal morbidity

Abstract Background We examined the risk of severe life-threatening morbidity in pregnant patients with Covid-19 infection. Methods We conducted a population-based study of 162,576 pregnancies between March 2020 and March 2022 in Quebec, Canada. The main exposure was Covid-19 infection, including the severity, period of infection (antepartum, peripartum), and circulating variant (wildtype, alpha, delta, omicron). The outcome was severe maternal morbidity during pregnancy up to 42 days postpartum. We estimated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between Covid-19 infection and severe maternal morbidity using adjusted log-binomial regression models. Results Covid-19 infection was associated with twice the risk of severe maternal morbidity compared with no infection (RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.76–2.31). Risks were elevated for acute renal failure (RR 3.01, 95% CI 1.79–5.06), embolism, shock, sepsis, and disseminated intravascular coagulation (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.95–1.93), and severe hemorrhage (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.09–2.04). Severe antepartum (RR 13.60, 95% CI 10.72–17.26) and peripartum infections (RR 20.93, 95% CI 17.11–25.60) were strongly associated with severe maternal morbidity. Mild antepartum infections also increased the risk, but to a lesser magnitude (RR 3.43, 95% CI 2.42–4.86). Risk of severe maternal morbidity was around 3 times greater during circulation of wildtype and the alpha and delta variants, but only 1.2 times greater during omicron. Conclusions Covid-19 infection during pregnancy increases risk of life-threatening maternal morbidity, including renal, embolic, and hemorrhagic complications. Severe Covid-19 infection with any variant in the antepartum or peripartum periods all increase the risk of severe maternal morbidity

Association between gestational weight gain and severe adverse birth outcomes in Washington State, US: A population-based retrospective cohort study, 2004-2013.

BACKGROUND:Suboptimal weight gain during pregnancy is a potentially modifiable risk factor. We aimed to investigate the association between suboptimal gestational weight gain and severe adverse birth outcomes by pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) categories, including obesity class I to III. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We conducted a population-based study of pregnant women with singleton hospital births in Washington State, US, between 2004 and 2013. Optimal, low, and excess weight gain in each BMI category was calculated based on weight gain by gestational age as recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Institute of Medicine. Primary composite outcomes were (1) maternal death and/or severe maternal morbidity (SMM) and (2) perinatal death and/or severe neonatal morbidity. Logistic regression was used to obtain adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals. Overall, 722,839 women with information on pre-pregnancy BMI were included. Of these, 3.1% of women were underweight, 48.1% had normal pre-pregnancy BMI, 25.8% were overweight, and 23.0% were obese. Only 31.5% of women achieved optimal gestational weight gain. Women who had low weight gain were more likely to be African American and have Medicaid health insurance, while women with excess weight gain were more likely to be non-Hispanic white and younger than women with optimal weight gain in each pre-pregnancy BMI category. Compared with women who had optimal weight gain, those with low gestational weight gain had a higher rate of maternal death, 7.97 versus 2.63 per 100,000 (p = 0.027). In addition, low weight gain was associated with the composite adverse maternal outcome (death/SMM) in women with normal pre-pregnancy BMI and in overweight women (AOR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04-1.21, p = 0.004, and AOR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04-1.32, p = 0.009, respectively) compared to women in the same pre-pregnancy BMI category who had optimal weight gain. Similarly, excess gestational weight gain was associated with increased rates of death/SMM among women with normal pre-pregnancy BMI (AOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.12-1.28, p < 0.001) and obese women (AOR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01-1.23, p = 0.019). Low gestational weight gain was associated with perinatal death and severe neonatal morbidity regardless of pre-pregnancy BMI, including obesity classes I, II, and III, while excess weight gain was associated with severe neonatal morbidity only in women who were underweight or had normal BMI prior to pregnancy. Study limitations include the ascertainment of pre-pregnancy BMI using self-report, and lack of data availability for the most recent years. CONCLUSIONS:In this study, we found that most women do not achieve optimal weight gain during pregnancy. Low weight gain was associated with increased risk of severe adverse birth outcomes, and in particular with maternal death and perinatal death. Excess gestational weight gain was associated with severe adverse birth outcomes, except for women who were overweight prior to pregnancy. Weight gain recommendations for this group may need to be reassessed. It is important to counsel women during pregnancy about specific risks associated with both low and excess weight gain

Placental growth factor for the prognosis of women with preeclampsia (fullPIERS model extension): context matters

Background: The fullPIERS risk prediction model was developed to identify which women admitted with confirmed diagnosis of preeclampsia are at highest risk of developing serious maternal complications. The model discriminates well between women who develop (vs. those who do not) adverse maternal outcomes. It has been externally validated in several populations. We assessed whether placental growth factor (PlGF), a biomarker associated with preeclampsia risk, adds incremental value to the fullPIERS model. Methods: Using a cohort of women admitted into tertiary hospitals in well-resourced settings (the USA and Canada), between May 2010 to February 2012, we evaluated the incremental value of PlGF added to fullPIERS for prediction of adverse maternal outcomes within 48 h after admission with confirmed preeclampsia. The discriminatory performance of PlGF and the fullPIERS model were assessed in this cohort using the area under the receiver’s operating characteristic curve (AUROC) while the extended model (fullPIERS +PlGF) was assessed based on net reclassification index (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) performances. Results: In a cohort of 541 women delivered shortly ( 0.75). Conclusions: While fullPIERS model performance may have been affected by differences in healthcare context between this study cohort and the model development and validation cohorts, future studies are required to confirm whether PlGF adds incremental benefit to the fullPIERS model for prediction of adverse maternal outcomes in preeclampsia in settings where expectant management is practiced.Medicine, Faculty ofOther UBCNon UBCAnesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Department ofObstetrics and Gynaecology, Department ofPopulation and Public Health (SPPH), School ofReviewedFacult