Abstract:BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of failure to progress, the most common indication for intrapartum cesarean delivery, is based on the assessment of cervical dilation and station over time. Labor curves serve as references of expected changes in dilation and fetal descent. The labor curves of Friedman, Zhang et al and others are based on time alone and derived from mothers with spontaneous labor onset. However, labor induction is now common, and clinicians also consider other factors when assessing labor progress. Labor curves that consider the use of induction and other factors that influence labor progress have the potential to be more accurate and closer to clinical decision-making.OBJECTIVE: To compare the prediction errors of labor curves based on a single factor (time) or multiple clinically relevant factors using 2 modeling methods: mixed-effects regression, a standard statistical method, and Gaussian processes, a machine learning method.STUDY DESIGN: This was a longitudinal cohort study of changes in dilation and station based on data from 8022 births in nulliparous women with a live, singleton, vertex presenting fetus at ≥35 weeks of gestation with a vaginal delivery. New labor curves of dilation and station were generated with 10-fold cross-validation. External validation was performed using a geographically independent group. Model variables included time from the first exam in the 20 hours before delivery; dilation, effacement and station recorded at the previous examination; cumulative contraction counts; and use of epidural anesthesia and labor induction. To assess model accuracy, we calculated the differences between each model's predicted value and its corresponding observed value. These prediction errors were summarized using mean absolute error and root mean squared error statistics.RESULTS: (1) Dilation curves based on multiple parameters were more accurate than those derived from time alone. (2) The mean absolute error with the multifactor methods were better (lower) than those from the single-factor methods [0.826 cm (95% CI, 0.820-0.832) for the multifactor machine learning and 0.893 cm (95% CI, 0.885-0.901) for the multifactor mixed-effects method and 2.122 cm (95% CI, 2.108-2.136) for the single-factor methods; P<0.0001 for both comparisons]. (3) The root mean squared errors with the multifactor methods were also better (lower) than those from the single-factor methods [1.126 cm (95% CI, 1.118-1.133) P<0.0001 for the machine learning and 1.172cm (95% CI, 1.164-1.181) for the mixed-effects method and 2.504 cm (95% CI, 2.487-2.521) for the single-factor; P<0.0001 for both comparisons]. (4) The multifactor machine learning dilation models showed small but statistically significant improvements in accuracy compared to the mixed-effects regression models (P<0.0001). (5) The multifactor machine learning method produced a curve of descent with a mean absolute error of 0.512 cm (95% CI, 0.509-0.515) and a root mean squared error of 0.660 cm (95% CI, 0.655-0.666). (6) External validation using independent data produced similar findings.CONCLUSIONS: (1) Cervical dilation models based on multiple clinically relevant parameters showed improved (lower) prediction errors compared to models based on time alone; (2) the mean prediction errors were reduced by more than 50%; and (3) a more accurate assessment of departure from expected dilation and station may help clinicians optimize intrapartum management.

Validated Calculators Predicting Cesarean Delivery After Induction: Accuracy in an External Population

Can Ultrasonographic Measurement of Respiratory Variability in the Diameter of the Internal Jugular Vein and the Subclavian Vein Predict Fluid Responsiveness in Parturients During Cesarean Delivery? A Prospective Cohort Study

Predicting cesarean delivery for failure to progress as an outcome of labor induction in term singleton pregnancy

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Nomogram to Antenatal Predict Cesarean Delivery for Cephalopelvic Disproportion in Primiparous Women

Development of Prediction Models for Successful External Cephalic Version and Delivery Outcome

Nomogram Predicting Cesarean Delivery Undergoing Induction of Labor among High-Risk Nulliparous Women at Term: a Retrospective Study.

A Nomogram for Antenatal Estimation of Cephalopelvic Disproportion in Primiparous Women Based on MRI Measurements

Accuracy of Transvaginal Ultrasound Parameters and Bishop Score as Predictors of Successful Induction of Labor in Term High-Risk Pregnancy

Construction and verification of prediction models for intrapartum cesarean section to be used at full-term pregnant women with singleton and cephalic presentation under the new labor standard: a retrospective case-control study

Validation of a new calculator for predicting success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery

Prediction of intrapartum cesarean delivery among women with obesity: A retrospective cohort study

Predicting vaginal delivery after labor induction using machine learning: Development of a multivariable prediction model

A Validated Calculator to Estimate Risk of Chorioamnionitis in Laboring and Induced Patients at Term

Development of a cross-validated model for predicting emergency cesarean for intrapartum fetal compromise at term

Development And Validation Of Predictive Models For Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery In China

Establishment and Validation of a Machine Learning-Based Prediction Model for Termination of Pregnancy via Cesarean Section

New labor curves of dilation and station to improve the accuracy of predicting labor progress

A Multivariable Model from a Prospective Observational Approach

Prediction of cesarean delivery in class III obese nulliparous women: An externally validated model using machine learning

Prediction of successful labor induction with very unfavorable cervix: A comparison of six scores

Prediction of unplanned cesarean section using measurable maternal and fetal characteristics, Ethiopia, a retrospective cohort study