Cited by 27Pregnancy and preeclampsia studiesPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare

Competing‐risks model for prediction of small‐for‐gestational‐age neonate from estimated fetal weight at 19–24 weeks' gestation

Open access
Papastefanou, I., Nowacka, U., Syngelaki, A., Dragoi, V., Karamanis, G., Wright, D., Nicolaides, K. H.·2021·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/uog.23593

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.

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

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?

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

  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
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