» Articles » PMID: 37297757

Prediction Models for Intrauterine Growth Restriction Using Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview
Specialty Health Services
Date 2023 Jun 10
PMID 37297757
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: IntraUterine Growth Restriction (IUGR) is a global public health concern and has major implications for neonatal health. The early diagnosis of this condition is crucial for obtaining positive outcomes for the newborn. In recent years Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) techniques are being used to identify risk factors and provide early prediction of IUGR. We performed a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) aimed to evaluate the use and performance of AI/ML models in detecting fetuses at risk of IUGR.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review according to the PRISMA checklist. We searched for studies in all the principal medical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane). To assess the quality of the studies we used the JBI and CASP tools. We performed a meta-analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy, along with the calculation of the pooled principal measures.

Results: We included 20 studies reporting the use of AI/ML models for the prediction of IUGR. Out of these, 10 studies were used for the quantitative meta-analysis. The most common input variable to predict IUGR was the fetal heart rate variability ( = 8, 40%), followed by the biochemical or biological markers ( = 5, 25%), DNA profiling data ( = 2, 10%), Doppler indices ( = 3, 15%), MRI data ( = 1, 5%), and physiological, clinical, or socioeconomic data ( = 1, 5%). Overall, we found that AI/ML techniques could be effective in predicting and identifying fetuses at risk for IUGR during pregnancy with the following pooled overall diagnostic performance: sensitivity = 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.88), specificity = 0.87 (95% CI 0.83-0.90), positive predictive value = 0.78 (95% CI 0.68-0.86), negative predictive value = 0.91 (95% CI 0.86-0.94) and diagnostic odds ratio = 30.97 (95% CI 19.34-49.59). In detail, the RF-SVM (Random Forest-Support Vector Machine) model (with 97% accuracy) showed the best results in predicting IUGR from FHR parameters derived from CTG.

Conclusions: our findings showed that AI/ML could be part of a more accurate and cost-effective screening method for IUGR and be of help in optimizing pregnancy outcomes. However, before the introduction into clinical daily practice, an appropriate algorithmic improvement and refinement is needed, and the importance of quality assessment and uniform diagnostic criteria should be further emphasized.

Citing Articles

Applications of Artificial Intelligence for Heat Stress Management in Ruminant Livestock.

Rebez E, Sejian V, Silpa M, Kalaignazhal G, Thirunavukkarasu D, Devaraj C Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(18).

PMID: 39338635 PMC: 11435989. DOI: 10.3390/s24185890.


Fostering Tomorrow: Uniting Artificial Intelligence and Social Pediatrics for Comprehensive Child Well-being.

Gulsen M, Yalcin S Turk Arch Pediatr. 2024; 59(4):345-352.

PMID: 39110287 PMC: 11332429. DOI: 10.5152/TurkArchPediatr.2024.24076.


Enhancing Obstetric Ultrasonography With Artificial Intelligence in Resource-Limited Settings.

Gimovsky A, Eke A, Tuuli M JAMA. 2024; 332(8):626-628.

PMID: 39088222 PMC: 11863673. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2024.14794.


Prediction of Intrauterine Growth Restriction and Preeclampsia Using Machine Learning-Based Algorithms: A Prospective Study.

Vasilache I, Scripcariu I, Doroftei B, Bernad R, Carauleanu A, Socolov D Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(4).

PMID: 38396491 PMC: 10887724. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14040453.


Healthcare analytics-A literature review and proposed research agenda.

Elragal R, Elragal A, Habibipour A Front Big Data. 2023; 6:1277976.

PMID: 37869248 PMC: 10585099. DOI: 10.3389/fdata.2023.1277976.


References
1.
Liu K, Fu Q, Liu Y, Wang C . An integrative bioinformatics analysis of microarray data for identifying hub genes as diagnostic biomarkers of preeclampsia. Biosci Rep. 2019; 39(9). PMC: 6722495. DOI: 10.1042/BSR20190187. View

2.
Choi R, Coyner A, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Chiang M, Campbell J . Introduction to Machine Learning, Neural Networks, and Deep Learning. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2020; 9(2):14. PMC: 7347027. DOI: 10.1167/tvst.9.2.14. View

3.
Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372:n71. PMC: 8005924. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71. View

4.
Crovetto F, Crispi F, Scazzocchio E, Mercade I, Meler E, Figueras F . First-trimester screening for early and late small-for-gestational-age neonates using maternal serum biochemistry, blood pressure and uterine artery Doppler. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 43(1):34-40. DOI: 10.1002/uog.12537. View

5.
Abraham M, Alramadhan S, Iniguez C, Duijts L, Jaddoe V, den Dekker H . A systematic review of maternal smoking during pregnancy and fetal measurements with meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017; 12(2):e0170946. PMC: 5322900. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170946. View