Advertisement

Predicting Down syndrome and neural tube defects using basic risk factors

  • Momina T. KhattakEmail author
  • Eko Supriyanto
  • Muhammad N. Aman
  • Rania H. Al-Ashwal
Original Article
  • 64 Downloads

Abstract

Congenital anomalies are not only one of the main killers for infants but also one of the major causes of deaths under 5. Among congenital anomalies, Down syndrome or trisomy 21 (T-21) and neural tube defects (NTDs) are considered the most common. Expectant mothers in developing countries may not have access to or may not afford the advanced prenatal screening tests. To solve this issue, this paper explores the practicality of using only the basic risk factors for developing prediction models as a tool for initial risk assessment. The prediction models are based on logistic regression. The results show that the prediction models do not have a high balanced classification rate. However, these models can still be used as an effective tool for initial risk assessment for T-21 and NTDs by eliminating at least 50% of the cases with no or low risk.

Graphical Abstract

Prenatal Risk Assessment of Trisomy-21 and Neural Tube Defects

Keywords

Prenatal screening Prediction model Trisomy 21 Neural tube defects Logistic regression 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for providing the facilities and environment for completion of this work.

References

  1. 1.
    (2016) Methods and data sources for child causes of death. World Health OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    (2017) Maternal Screening for Foetal Abnormality, Ministry of Health, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DNA laboratories Malaysia. http://www.dna-laboratories.com/
  4. 4.
    Sonek JD, et al. (2012) Screening at 11-13 + 6 weeks’ gestation. Ceska Gynekol 77:92–104Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khoshnood B, et al. (2000) Ethnic differences in the impact of advanced maternal age on birth prevalence of Down syndrome. Am J Public Health 90(11):1778–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deak KL, et al. (2008) Further evidence for a maternal genetic effect and a sex-influenced effect contributing to risk for human neural tube defects. Birth Defects Research. Part A. Clin Mol Teratol 82(10):662–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shin M, et al. (2009) Prevalence of Down syndrome among children and adolescents in 10 regions of the United States. Pediatrics 124(6):1565–1571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vogenberg FR (2009) Predictive and prognostic models: implications for healthcare decision-making in a modern recession. Am Health Drug Benefits 2(6):218–22Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Steyerberg E (2009) Clinical prediction model - a practical approach to development, validation and updating. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hallen S, et al. (2014) Physicians’ perceptions of the value of prognostic models: the benefits and risks of prognostic confidence. Health Expect 18:6Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Merkatz IR, et al. (1984) An association between low maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein and fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Am J Obstetr Gynecol 148:886–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wald NJ, et al. (1996) Prenatal screening for Down’s syndrome using inhibin-a as a serum marker. Prenat Diagn 53:16–23Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brizot ML, et al. (1995) Maternal serum hCG and fetal nuchal translucency thickness for the prediction of fetal trisomies in the first trimester of pregnancy. British J Obstetr Gynecol 32:102–127Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wald NJ, et al. (2003) First and second trimester antenatal screening for Down’s syndrome: the results of the serum, urine and ultrasound screening study (SURUSS). J Med Screen 10:56–66Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cicero S, et al. (2001) Absence of nasal bone in fetuses with trisomy 21 at 11-14 weeks of gestation: an observational study. Lancet 358:1665–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matias A, et al. (1998) Screening for chromosomal abnormalities at 11-14 weeks: the role of ductus venosus blood flow. Ultrasound Obstetr Gynecol 2:380–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huggon IC, et al. (2003) Tricuspid regurgitation in the diagnosis of chromosomal anomalies in the fetus at 11-14 weeks of gestation. Heart 89:1071–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Uzun O, et al. (2013) Prenatal risk assessment of trisomy 21 by probabilistic classifiers. In: Signal processing and commun. applications conf. Haspolat, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gersnoviez RJ (2011) Optimizing a first-trimester predictive model for trisomy 21. Proquest, Umi Dissertation PublishingGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Neocleous AC, et al. (2016) First trimester noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: a computational intelligence approach. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 20(5):1427–1438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neocleous AC, et al. (2016) Intelligent non-invasive diagnosis of aneuploidy: raw values and highly imbalanced dataset. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 21(5):1271–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    (2006). Adverse pregnancy outcome reporting system public data set. Illinois Department of Public Health OctoberGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tharwat A (2018) Classification assessment methods. Applied Computing and Informatics, 2018Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kutner MH et al (2004) Applied linear regression models, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill IrwinGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Albasri A, et al. (2018) Hypertension referrals from community pharmacy to general practice: multivariate logistic regression analysis of 131 419 patients. British J General Pract 68(673):541–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wulsin LR, et al. (2015) Autonomic imbalance as a predictor of metabolic risks, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and mortality. J Clin Endocrinol Metabol 100:2443–2448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Algamal ZY, et al. (2015) Regularized logistic regression with adjusted adaptive elastic net for gene selection in high dimensional cancer classification. Comput Biol Med 67:136–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Delacour H, et al. (2005) ROC (receiver operating characteristics) curve: principles and application in biology. Ann Biol Clin (Paris) 63(2):145–54Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biomedical Engineering and Health SciencesUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaJohorMalaysia
  2. 2.School of ComputingNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations