Cited by 31Reproductive System and PregnancyReproductive Health and ContraceptionPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics

Prediction of subsequent miscarriage risk in women who present with a viable pregnancy at the first early pregnancy scan

Stamatopoulos, Nicole, Lu, Chuan, Casikar, Ishwari, Reid, Shannon, Mongelli, Max, Hardy, Nigel, Condous, George·2015·Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Abstract

Objectives: To generate and evaluate a new prediction model for miscarriage in women who present with a viable intrauterine pregnancy ( IUP ) at the primary early pregnancy scan and to compare this new model to a previously published model. Materials and Methods: Data were collected prospectively from women presenting to the early pregnancy unit with a viable IUP between November 2006 and January 2013. More than 30 historical, clinical and ultrasonographic variables were recorded on a standardised datasheet at the first visit. Women were followed until the final outcome was known at the end of the first trimester: viable IUP or miscarriage. A new multinomial logistic regression model was developed retrospectively on training cases and tested prospectively on test cases. The performance of the new prediction model was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic ( ROC ) curves and compared to a previously published model. After removing cases with missing values for the model of Oates, the area under the ROC curve ( AUC ) was also calculated for the new model and the Oates model. Results: A total of 1115 consecutive first‐trimester women presented to the early pregnancy unit. Eight hundred and sixty‐two women with a viable IUP at the first scan whose outcome was known at the end of the first trimester were included in the final analysis. Five hundred and sixty‐six women were included in the training set and 296 in the test set. 92.1% were viable and 7.9% had miscarried at the end of the first trimester. The most significant independent prognostic variables for the logistic regression model were as follows: maternal age, embryonic heart rate ( EHR ), logarithm [gestational sac ( GS ) volume/crown‐rump length ( CRL )], CRL and the presence or absence of clots per vagina ( PV ) at presentation. The performance of the new model compared with the Oates model gave an AUC of 0.870 vs 0.847 for the training set and 0.783 vs 0.744 for the test set. After removing cases with missing values for the model of Oates 2013, the performance of the new model compared to the Oates model gave an AUC of 0.887 vs 0.861 for the training set and 0.816 vs 0.734 for the test set ( P ‐value <0.04). Conclusions: We have developed a new prediction model which indicates the likelihood of miscarriage. In women who present with a viable IUP at the primary scan, advancing maternal age in the presence of clots PV increases the probability of subsequent miscarriage. Whereas, in women with a higher EHR in the presence of an increased GS volume/ CRL ratio, the likelihood of subsequent miscarriage is reduced. This new model outperforms the previously published model developed in our unit.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ajo.12395

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stamatopoulos, N., Lu, C., Casikar, I., Reid, S., Mongelli, M., Hardy, N., & Condous, G.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Department of Computer Science Aberystwyth University Aberystwyth UK
  • Aberystwyth University (GB)
Corresponding author
Stamatopoulos, Nicole
Venue
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-08-21
Volume
55
Issue
5
Pages
464-472
ISSN
  • 0004-8666 (ISSN-L)
  • 1479-828X
OpenAlex
W2095778901
Cited by
31
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Reproductive System and Pregnancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Keywords
recurrent pregnancy loss, first-trimester miscarriage, gestational sac volume, crown-rump length, embryonic heart rate, maternal age, multinomial logistic regression, prediction model validation, area under the ROC curve, forecasting model comparison
MeSH terms
Abortion, Spontaneous, Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Analysis of Variance, Female, Humans, Maternal Age, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Retrospective Studies, ROC Curve, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Cohort Studies, Multivariate Analysis, Logistic Models, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Crown-Rump Length, Risk Assessment, Young Adult

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