4.6 Article

Using graph learning to understand adverse pregnancy outcomes and stress pathways

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 14, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223319

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Hillman Foundation
  2. Richard King Mellon Foundation/Magee-Womens Research Institute
  3. NIH [KL2 TR001856]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To identify pathways between stress indicators and adverse pregnancy outcomes, we applied a nonparametric graph-learning algorithm, PC-KCl, to data from an observational prospective cohort study. The Measurement of Maternal Stress study (MOMS) followed 744 women with a singleton intrauterine pregnancy recruited between June 2013 and May 2015. Infant adverse pregnancy outcomes were prematurity (<37 weeks' gestation), infant days spent in hospital after birth, and being small for gestational age (percentile gestational weight at birth). Maternal adverse pregnancy outcomes were pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, and gestational hypertension. PC-KCl replicated well-established pathways, such as the relationship between gestational weeks and preterm premature rupture of membranes. PC-KCl also identified previously unobserved pathways to adverse pregnancy outcomes, including 1) a link between hair cortisol levels (at 12-21 weeks of pregnancy) and pre-eclampsia; 2) two pathways to preterm birth depending on race, with one linking Hispanic race, pre-gestational diabetes and gestational weeks, and a second pathway linking black race, hair cortisol, preeclampsia, and gestational weeks; and 3) a relationship between maternal childhood trauma, perceived social stress in adulthood, and low weight for gestational age. Our approach confirmed previous findings and identified previously unobserved pathways to adverse pregnancy outcomes. It presents a method for a global assessment of a clinical problem for further study of possible causal pathways.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available