Diagnostics (Jul 2021)

Predictors of Newborn’s Weight for Height: A Machine Learning Study Using Nationwide Multicenter Ultrasound Data

  • Ki Hoon Ahn,
  • Kwang-Sig Lee,
  • Se Jin Lee,
  • Sung Ok Kwon,
  • Sunghun Na,
  • Kyongjin Kim,
  • Hye Sim Kang,
  • Kyung A Lee,
  • Hye-Sung Won,
  • Moon Young Kim,
  • Han Sung Hwang,
  • Mi Hye Park,
  • Korean Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics Gynecology Research Group

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11071280
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 11, no. 7
p. 1280

Abstract

Read online

There has been no machine learning study with a rich collection of clinical, sonographic markers to compare the performance measures for a variety of newborns’ weight-for-height indicators. This study compared the performance measures for a variety of newborns’ weight-for-height indicators based on machine learning, ultrasonographic data and maternal/delivery information. The source of data for this study was a multi-center retrospective study with 2949 mother–newborn pairs. The mean-squared-error-over-variance measures of five machine learning approaches were compared for newborn’s weight, newborn’s weight/height, newborn’s weight/height2 and newborn’s weight/hieght3. Random forest variable importance, the influence of a variable over average node impurity, was used to identify major predictors of these newborns’ weight-for-height indicators among ultrasonographic data and maternal/delivery information. Regarding ultrasonographic fetal biometry, newborn’s weight, newborn’s weight/height and newborn’s weight/height2 were better indicators with smaller mean-squared-error-over-variance measures than newborn’s weight/height3. Based on random forest variable importance, the top six predictors of newborn’s weight were the same as those of newborn’s weight/height and those of newborn’s weight/height2: gestational age at delivery time, the first estimated fetal weight and abdominal circumference in week 36 or later, maternal weight and body mass index at delivery time, and the first biparietal diameter in week 36 or later. These six predictors also ranked within the top seven for large-for-gestational-age and the top eight for small-for-gestational-age. In conclusion, newborn’s weight, newborn’s weight/height and newborn’s weight/height2 are more suitable for ultrasonographic fetal biometry with smaller mean-squared-error-over-variance measures than newborn’s weight/height3. Machine learning with ultrasonographic data would be an effective noninvasive approach for predicting newborn’s weight, weight/height and weight/height2.

Keywords