Cargando…

Predictive analytical model for ectopic pregnancy diagnosis: Statistics vs. machine learning

OBJECTIVE: Ectopic pregnancy (EP) is well known for its critical maternal outcome. Early detection could make the difference between life and death in pregnancy. Our aim was to make a prompt diagnosis before the rupture occur. Thus, the predictive analytical models using both conventional statistics...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rueangket, Ploywarong, Rittiluechai, Kristsanamon, Prayote, Akara
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9537586/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36213675
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.976829
_version_ 1784803236383817728
author Rueangket, Ploywarong
Rittiluechai, Kristsanamon
Prayote, Akara
author_facet Rueangket, Ploywarong
Rittiluechai, Kristsanamon
Prayote, Akara
author_sort Rueangket, Ploywarong
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Ectopic pregnancy (EP) is well known for its critical maternal outcome. Early detection could make the difference between life and death in pregnancy. Our aim was to make a prompt diagnosis before the rupture occur. Thus, the predictive analytical models using both conventional statistics and machine learning (ML) methods were studied. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 407 pregnancies with unknown location (PULs): 306 PULs for internal validation and 101 PULs for external validation, randomized with a nested cross-validation technique. Using a set of 22 study features based on clinical factors, serum marker and ultrasound findings from electronic medical records, analyzing with neural networks (NNs), decision tree (DT), support vector machines (SVMs), and a statistical logistic regression (LR). Diagnostic performances were compared with the area under the curve (ROC-AUC), including sensitivity and specificity for decisional use. RESULTS: Comparing model performance (internal validation) to predict EP, LR ranked first, with a mean ROC-AUC ± SD of 0.879 ± 0.010. In testing data (external validation), NNs ranked first, followed closely by LR, SVMs, and DT with average ROC-AUC ± SD of 0.898 ± 0.027, 0.896 ± 0.034, 0.882 ± 0.029, and 0.856 ± 0.033, respectively. For clinical aid, we report sensitivity of mean ± SD in LR: 90.20% ± 3.49%; SVM: 89.79% ± 3.66%; DT: 89.22% ± 4.53%; and NNs: 86.92% ± 3.24%, consecutively. However, specificity ± SD was ranked by NNs, followed by SVMs, LR, and DT, which were 82.02 ± 8.34%, 80.37 ± 5.15%, 79.65% ± 6.01%, and 78.97% ± 4.07%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both statistics and the ML model could achieve satisfactory predictions for EP. In model learning, the highest ranked model was LR, showing that EP prediction might possess linear or causal data pattern. However, in new testing data, NNs could overcome statistics. This highlights the potency of ML in solving complicated problems with various patterns, while overcoming generalization error of data.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9537586
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95375862022-10-08 Predictive analytical model for ectopic pregnancy diagnosis: Statistics vs. machine learning Rueangket, Ploywarong Rittiluechai, Kristsanamon Prayote, Akara Front Med (Lausanne) Medicine OBJECTIVE: Ectopic pregnancy (EP) is well known for its critical maternal outcome. Early detection could make the difference between life and death in pregnancy. Our aim was to make a prompt diagnosis before the rupture occur. Thus, the predictive analytical models using both conventional statistics and machine learning (ML) methods were studied. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 407 pregnancies with unknown location (PULs): 306 PULs for internal validation and 101 PULs for external validation, randomized with a nested cross-validation technique. Using a set of 22 study features based on clinical factors, serum marker and ultrasound findings from electronic medical records, analyzing with neural networks (NNs), decision tree (DT), support vector machines (SVMs), and a statistical logistic regression (LR). Diagnostic performances were compared with the area under the curve (ROC-AUC), including sensitivity and specificity for decisional use. RESULTS: Comparing model performance (internal validation) to predict EP, LR ranked first, with a mean ROC-AUC ± SD of 0.879 ± 0.010. In testing data (external validation), NNs ranked first, followed closely by LR, SVMs, and DT with average ROC-AUC ± SD of 0.898 ± 0.027, 0.896 ± 0.034, 0.882 ± 0.029, and 0.856 ± 0.033, respectively. For clinical aid, we report sensitivity of mean ± SD in LR: 90.20% ± 3.49%; SVM: 89.79% ± 3.66%; DT: 89.22% ± 4.53%; and NNs: 86.92% ± 3.24%, consecutively. However, specificity ± SD was ranked by NNs, followed by SVMs, LR, and DT, which were 82.02 ± 8.34%, 80.37 ± 5.15%, 79.65% ± 6.01%, and 78.97% ± 4.07%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both statistics and the ML model could achieve satisfactory predictions for EP. In model learning, the highest ranked model was LR, showing that EP prediction might possess linear or causal data pattern. However, in new testing data, NNs could overcome statistics. This highlights the potency of ML in solving complicated problems with various patterns, while overcoming generalization error of data. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-09-23 /pmc/articles/PMC9537586/ /pubmed/36213675 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.976829 Text en Copyright © 2022 Rueangket, Rittiluechai and Prayote. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Medicine
Rueangket, Ploywarong
Rittiluechai, Kristsanamon
Prayote, Akara
Predictive analytical model for ectopic pregnancy diagnosis: Statistics vs. machine learning
title Predictive analytical model for ectopic pregnancy diagnosis: Statistics vs. machine learning
title_full Predictive analytical model for ectopic pregnancy diagnosis: Statistics vs. machine learning
title_fullStr Predictive analytical model for ectopic pregnancy diagnosis: Statistics vs. machine learning
title_full_unstemmed Predictive analytical model for ectopic pregnancy diagnosis: Statistics vs. machine learning
title_short Predictive analytical model for ectopic pregnancy diagnosis: Statistics vs. machine learning
title_sort predictive analytical model for ectopic pregnancy diagnosis: statistics vs. machine learning
topic Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9537586/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36213675
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.976829
work_keys_str_mv AT rueangketploywarong predictiveanalyticalmodelforectopicpregnancydiagnosisstatisticsvsmachinelearning
AT rittiluechaikristsanamon predictiveanalyticalmodelforectopicpregnancydiagnosisstatisticsvsmachinelearning
AT prayoteakara predictiveanalyticalmodelforectopicpregnancydiagnosisstatisticsvsmachinelearning