Back

Integrating clinical factors and parity-specific models with molecular biomarkers to better predict the risk of preterm birth in asymptomatic women

Polpitiya, A.; Cox, C.; Butler, H.; Badsha, M. B.; Sommerville, L.; Boniface, J.; Saade, G.; Kearney, P.

2026-03-16 obstetrics and gynecology
10.64898/2026.03.13.26348357 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundPrior spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB) and short cervical length predict the occurrence of sPTB with low sensitivity, highlighting the need for better detectors of at-risk pregnancies. PreTRM(R) is a validated, biomarker-based sPTB predictor that we aimed to improve in this study by developing models that incorporate parity and key risk factors. MethodsA Model was developed and validated through retrospective analysis of a cohort of singleton pregnancies that resulted in live term or preterm birth (PTB). The Models ability to predict sPTB and PTB was assessed and its clinical utility compared to PreTRM. ResultsThe Model predicted sPTB with 77.1% sensitivity, 74.4% specificity, 21.4% positive predictive value (PPV) and 97.3% negative predictive value (NPV), an improvement over PreTRMs sensitivity (75.0%) and PPV (14.6%), and higher PPV than short cervix (16.2%). PTB was predicted by the Model with 76.8% sensitivity, 74.6% specificity, 31.6% PPV and 95.5% NPV. The Model predicted a neonatal hospital stay [≥]5 days with a significantly higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) than PreTRM associated with PTB (p = 0.001) and sPTB (p = 0.044). The Model also achieved significantly higher sensitivity than PreTRM at predicting a [≥]5 day hospital stay associated with PTB (p = 0.009) with improved sensitivity for sPTB, showing overall that the Model performs better than PreTRM in regard to clinical utility. ConclusionsThe Model achieved substantially higher performance than standard of care risk predictors, and an improvement in clinical utility over PreTRM, demonstrating the robustness of the Model as a PTB predictor.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 8%
19.3%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
18.4%
3
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.3%
50% of probability mass above
4
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.3%
5
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.6%
6
Human Reproduction
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
7
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
8
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
9
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
10
Human Molecular Genetics
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
11
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
35 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
12
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.5%
13
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
14
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.3%
15
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.3%
16
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
17
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
18
Journal of Clinical Pathology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
19
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
20
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
21
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.7%
22
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
23
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
24
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.6%
25
Cell Communication and Signaling
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
26
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
27
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.6%
28
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%