Competing‐risks model for prediction of small‐for‐gestational‐age neonate from estimated fetal weight at 19–24 weeks' gestation
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To develop further a new competing‐risks model for the prediction of a small‐for‐gestational‐age (SGA) neonate, by including second‐trimester ultrasonographic estimated fetal weight (EFW). Methods: This was a prospective observational study in 96 678 women with singleton pregnancy undergoing routine ultrasound examination at 19–24 weeks' gestation. All pregnancies had ultrasound biometry assessment, and EFW was calculated according to the Hadlock formula. We refitted in this large dataset a previously described competing‐risks model for the joint distribution of gestational age (GA) at delivery and birth‐weight Z‐score, according to maternal demographic characteristics and medical history, to obtain the prior distribution. The continuous likelihood of the EFW was fitted conditionally to GA at delivery and birth‐weight Z‐score and modified the prior distribution, according to Bayes' theorem, to obtain individualized distributions for GA at delivery and birth‐weight Z‐score and therefore patient‐specific risks for any cut‐offs for GA at delivery and birth‐weight Z‐score. We assessed the discriminative ability of the model for predicting SGA with, without or independently of pre‐eclampsia occurrence. A calibration study was carried out. Performance of screening was evaluated for SGA defined according to the Fetal Medicine Foundation birth‐weight charts. Results: The distribution of EFW, conditional to both GA at delivery and birth‐weight Z‐score, was best described by a regression model. For earlier gestations, the association between EFW and birth weight was steeper. The prediction of SGA by maternal factors and EFW improved for increasing degree of prematurity and greater severity of smallness but not for coexistence of pre‐eclampsia. Screening by maternal factors predicted 31%, 34% and 39% of SGA neonates with birth weight < 10 th percentile delivered at ≥ 37, < 37 and < 30 weeks' gestation, respectively, at a 10% false‐positive rate, and, after addition of EFW, these rates increased to 38%, 43% and 59%, respectively; the respective rates for birth weight < 3 rd percentile were 43%, 50% and 64%. The addition of EFW improved the calibration of the model. Conclusion: In the competing‐risks model for prediction of SGA, the performance of screening by maternal characteristics and medical history is improved by the addition of second‐trimester EFW. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Recent research suggests that estimated fetal weight as early as the mid trimester could be used in a competing-risks model to predict subsequent small-for-gestational age.
“Recent research suggests that EFW as early as the mid trimester could be used in a competing-risks model to predict subsequent small-for-gestational age 28 .”
From <scp>ISUOG</scp> Practice Guidelines (updated): performance of the routine mid‐trimester fetal ultrasound scan (2022) · cites this paper as [28]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 27
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 202: Gestational Hypertension and Preeclampsia. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133: e1-e25.
- Authors
- Papastefanou, I., Nowacka, U., Syngelaki, A., Dragoi, V., Karamanis, G., Wright, D., & Nicolaides, K. H.
- Affiliations
- King's College Hospital (GB)
- Fetal Medicine Research Institute King's College Hospital London UK
- University of Exeter (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Nicolaides, K. H.
- Venue
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-05-05
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 917-924
- ISSN
- 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-0705
- OpenAlex
- W3124203428
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6
- FWCI
- 4.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Fetal Medicine Foundation (1 037 116, Charity No: 1037116, UK Charity No.: 1037116)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
- Keywords
- small for gestational age, estimated fetal weight, second-trimester ultrasound, competing risk model, birth weight prediction, gestational age at delivery, preeclampsia, prenatal screening, Hadlock formula, birth weight z-score, singleton pregnancy, prior distributions, model calibration, false positive rate, preterm birth, maternal risk factors
- MeSH terms
- Bayes Theorem, Biometry, Female, Fetal Growth Retardation, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Infant, Small for Gestational Age, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, Second, Prenatal Diagnosis, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Fetal Weight
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