Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33222689›Full record

Trial reportBMC medicine2020

Do nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)-based metabolomics improve the prediction of pregnancy-related disorders? Findings from a UK birth cohort with independent validation.

Nancy McBride, Paul Yousefi, Sara L White, Lucilla Poston, Diane Farrar, Naveed Sattar, Scott M Nelson, John Wright, Dan Mason, Matthew Suderman and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Maternal Body Mass Index, Early-Pregnancy Metabolite Profile, and Birthweight.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2022
    Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nancy McBrideMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. nancy.mcbride@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4439-4710
Paul YousefiMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Sara L WhiteDepartment of Women and Children's Health, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
Lucilla PostonDepartment of Women and Children's Health, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
Diane FarrarBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.
Naveed SattarNIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Scott M NelsonNIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
John WrightBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.
Dan MasonBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.
Matthew SudermanMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Caroline ReltonMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Deborah A LawlorMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
University of Bristol · GBBradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBBritish Heart Foundation · GBKing's College London · GB

Funding

Metabolomic and Epigenomic Mechanisms in Developmental Overnutrition.R01DK103246 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL · PI LAWLOR, DEBORAH ANNE · 2014 to 2018
$2.2M
British Heart Foundation CS/16/4/32482Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate CZB/A/680Department of Health PDF-2014-07-019Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/5Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/6Medical Research Council MR/L002477/1Medical Research Council MR/N024397/1Medical Research Council (GB) MR/L002477/1National Institute for Health Research RP-PG-0407-10452NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK103246Tommy's Baby Charity SC039280Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrediction of pregnancy-related disorders is usually done based on established and easily measured risk factors. Recent advances in metabolomics may provide earlier and more accurate prediction of women at risk of pregnancy-related disorders.

methodsWe used data collected from women in the Born in Bradford (BiB; n = 8212) and UK Pregnancies Better Eating and Activity Trial (UPBEAT; n = 859) studies to create and validate prediction models for pregnancy-related disorders. These were gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP), small for gestational age (SGA), large for gestational age (LGA) and preterm birth (PTB). We used ten-fold cross-validation and penalised regression to create prediction models. We compared the predictive performance of (1) risk factors (maternal age, pregnancy smoking, body mass index (BMI), ethnicity and parity) to (2) nuclear magnetic resonance-derived metabolites (N = 156 quantified metabolites, collected at 24-28 weeks gestation) and (3) combined risk factors and metabolites. The multi-ethnic BiB cohort was used for training and testing the models, with independent validation conducted in UPBEAT, a multi-ethnic study of obese pregnant women.

resultsMaternal age, pregnancy smoking, BMI, ethnicity and parity were retained in the combined risk factor and metabolite models for all outcomes apart from PTB, which did not include maternal age. In addition, 147, 33, 96, 51 and 14 of the 156 metabolite traits were retained in the combined risk factor and metabolite model for GDM, HDP, SGA, LGA and PTB, respectively. These include cholesterol and triglycerides in very low-density lipoproteins (VLDL) in the models predicting GDM, HDP, SGA and LGA, and monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), ratios of MUFA to omega 3 fatty acids and total fatty acids, and a ratio of apolipoprotein B to apolipoprotein A-1 (APOA:APOB1) were retained predictors for GDM and LGA. In BiB, discrimination for GDM, HDP, LGA and SGA was improved in the combined risk factors and metabolites models. Risk factor area under the curve (AUC 95% confidence interval (CI)): GDM (0.69 (0.64, 0.73)), HDP (0.74 (0.70, 0.78)) and LGA (0.71 (0.66, 0.75)), and SGA (0.59 (0.56, 0.63)). Combined risk factor and metabolite models AUC 95% (CI): GDM (0.78 (0.74, 0.81)), HDP (0.76 (0.73, 0.79)) and LGA (0.75 (0.70, 0.79)), and SGA (0.66 (0.63, 0.70)). For GDM, HDP and LGA, but not SGA, calibration was good for a combined risk factor and metabolite model. Prediction of PTB was poor for all models. Independent validation in UPBEAT at 24-28 weeks and 15-18 weeks gestation confirmed similar patterns of results, but AUCs were attenuated.

conclusionsOur results suggest a combined risk factor and metabolite model improves prediction of GDM, HDP and LGA, and SGA, when compared to risk factors alone. They also highlight the difficulty of predicting PTB, with all models performing poorly.

Indexed as

AdultCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyMetabolomicsPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsRisk FactorsUnited KingdomMetabolomicsPredictionPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID33222689
PMCPMC7681995
OpenAlexW3110085706

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.