Interpretable Machine Learning for Antepartum Prediction of Pregnancy-Associated Thrombotic Microangiopathy Using Routine Longitudinal Laboratory Data
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Background: Pregnancy-associated thrombotic microangiopathy (P-TMA) is rare but life-threatening. Early risk prediction before overt clinical presentation remains challenging, as the associated laboratory abnormalities are subtle, multidimensional, and frequently masked by common physiological changes such as gestational thrombocytopenia and pregnancy-related proteinuria, thus overlapping heavily with benign obstetric and renal conditions. This complexity is poorly captured by univariate or rule-based approaches; however, it is addressable by machine learning, which can extract latent, time-dependent risk signatures from longitudinal clinical tests. Methods: This retrospective study included 300 pregnancies comprising 142 P-TMA cases and 158 controls. After exclusion of identifiers and non-informative variables, 146 longitudinal laboratory predictors were retained. Participants were divided into a training cohort (80%) and a held-out test cohort (20%) using stratified sampling. Five algorithms were evaluated: logistic regression, support vector machine with radial basis function kernel, random forest, extra trees, and gradient boosting. The final model was selected by mean cross-validated AUROC, refitted on the full training cohort, and evaluated once in the held-out test cohort. Interpretability analyses examined global feature importance and distributional patterns of leading predictors. Results: Gradient boosting was prespecified by cross-validation in the training cohort. The model achieved an AUROC of 0.872 (95% CI: 0.769-0.952) and an AUPRC of 0.883 (95% CI: 0.780-0.959) in a held-out test cohort, with sensitivity of 0.750 and specificity of 0.812. Conclusions: Longitudinal clinical laboratory tests obtained during routine care contained informative and clinically plausible signals for P-TMA risk. Notably, cystatin C at week 6 showed promise as an early monitoring indicator.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 May 2026.
Builds on
8 of 48 references.
References · 8
- 2021Deep Neural Networks and Tabular Data: A Surveycited by 491
- 2019A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Towards Medical XAIcited by 404
- 2018Confounding variables can degrade generalization performance of radiological deep learning modelscited by 379
- 2019What Clinicians Want: Contextualizing Explainable Machine Learning for Clinical End Usecited by 135
- 2018A Review of Challenges and Opportunities in Machine Learning for Healthcited by 68
- 2020A Review of Deep Learning Methods for Irregularly Sampled Medical Time Series Datacited by 31
- 2018Learning Structure and Strength of CNN Filters for Small Sample Size Trainingcited by 8
- 2024Survival modeling using deep learning, machine learning and statistical methods: A comparative analysis for predicting mortality after hospital admissioncited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.