Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 259

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Accuracy of competing‐risks model in screening for pre‐eclampsia by maternal factors and biomarkers at 11–13 weeks' gestation

Open access
O'Gorman, N., Wright, D., Poon, L. C., Rolnik, D. L., Syngelaki, A., Wright, A., Akolekar, R., Cicero, S., Janga, D., Jani, J., Molina, F. S., de Paco Matallana, C., Papantoniou, N., Persico, N., Plasencia, W., Singh, M., Nicolaides, K. H.·2017·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

Objective: To examine the diagnostic accuracy of a previously developed model for prediction of pre‐eclampsia (PE) by a combination of maternal factors and biomarkers at 11–13 weeks' gestation. Methods: This was a prospective first‐trimester multicenter study of screening for PE in 8775 singleton pregnancies. A previously published algorithm was used for the calculation of patient‐specific risk of PE in each individual. The detection rates (DRs) and false‐positive rates (FPRs) for delivery with PE < 32, < 37 and ≥ 37 weeks were estimated and compared with those for the dataset used for development of the algorithm. Results: In the study population, 239 (2.7%) cases developed PE, of which 17 (0.2%), 59 (0.7%) and 180 (2.1%) developed PE < 32, < 37 and ≥ 37 weeks, respectively. With combined screening by maternal factors, mean arterial pressure, uterine artery pulsatility index and serum placental growth factor, the DR was 100% (95% CI, 80–100%) for PE < 32 weeks, 75% (95% CI, 62–85%) for PE < 37 weeks and 43% (95% CI, 35–50%) for PE ≥ 37 weeks, at a 10% FPR. These DRs were similar to the estimated rates for the dataset used for development of the model: 89% (95% CI, 79–96%) for PE < 32 weeks, 75% (95% CI, 70–80%) for PE < 37 weeks and 47% (95% CI, 44–51%) for PE ≥ 37 weeks. Conclusion: Assessment of a combination of maternal factors and biomarkers at 11–13 weeks provides effective first‐trimester screening for preterm PE. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/uog.17399

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 259

Metadata

Authors
O'Gorman, N., Wright, D., Poon, L. C., Rolnik, D. L., Syngelaki, A., Wright, A., Akolekar, R., Cicero, S., Janga, D., Jani, J., Molina, F. S., de Paco Matallana, C., Papantoniou, N., Persico, N., Plasencia, W., Singh, M., & Nicolaides, K. H.
Venue
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-05-14
Volume
49
Issue
6
Pages
751-755
ISSN
  • 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-0705
OpenAlex
W2569868133
Cited by
259
References
3
FWCI
32.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Accuracy of competing‐risks model in screening for pre‐eclampsia by maternal factors and biomarkers at 11–13 weeks' gestation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/uog.17399
The paper
O'Gorman, N., Wright, D., Poon, L. C., Rolnik, D. L., Syngelaki, A., Wright, A., Akolekar, R., Cicero, S., Janga, D., Jani, J., Molina, F. S., de Paco Matallana, C., Papantoniou, N., Persico, N., Plasencia, W., Singh, M., & Nicolaides, K. H. (2017). Accuracy of competing‐risks model in screening for pre‐eclampsia by maternal factors and biomarkers at 11–13 weeks' gestation. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.17399

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.