↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of logistic regression with machine learning methods for the prediction of fetal growth abnormalities: a retrospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of logistic regression with machine learning methods for the prediction of fetal growth abnormalities: a retrospective cohort study
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12884-018-1971-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefan Kuhle, Bryan Maguire, Hongqun Zhang, David Hamilton, Alexander C. Allen, K. S. Joseph, Victoria M. Allen

Abstract

While there is increasing interest in identifying pregnancies at risk for adverse outcome, existing prediction models have not adequately assessed population-based risks, and have been based on conventional regression methods. The objective of the current study was to identify predictors of fetal growth abnormalities using logistic regression and machine learning methods, and compare diagnostic properties in a population-based sample of infants. Data for 30,705 singleton infants born between 2009 and 2014 to mothers resident in Nova Scotia, Canada was obtained from the Nova Scotia Atlee Perinatal Database. Primary outcomes were small (SGA) and large for gestational age (LGA). Maternal characteristics pre-pregnancy and at 26 weeks were studied as predictors. Logistic regression and select machine learning methods were used to build the models, stratified by parity. Area under the curve was used to compare the models; relative importance of predictors was compared qualitatively. 7.9% and 13.5% of infants were SGA and LGA, respectively; 48.6% of births were to primiparous women and 51.4% were to multiparous women. Prediction of SGA and LGA was poor to fair (area under the curve 60-75%) and improved with increasing parity and pregnancy information. Smoking, previous low birthweight infant, and gestational weight gain were important predictors for SGA; pre-pregnancy body mass index, gestational weight gain, and previous macrosomic infant were the strongest predictors for LGA. The machine learning methods used in this study did not offer any advantage over logistic regression in the prediction of fetal growth abnormalities. Prediction accuracy for SGA and LGA based on maternal information is poor for primiparous women and fair for multiparous women.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 132 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Student > Master 12 9%
Researcher 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 45 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 15%
Computer Science 20 15%
Engineering 8 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Unspecified 5 4%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 53 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 August 2018.
All research outputs
#5,832,182
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#1,513
of 4,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,812
of 330,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#49
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,252 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,630 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.