Machine learning prediction of non-attendance to postpartum glucose screening and subsequent risk of type 2 diabetes following gestational diabetes

• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264648
• Publication Date: 2022-03-07T18:29:01Z
• Authors: Nishanthi Periyat...; Durga Parkhi; Yonas Ghebremicha...; Vinod Patel; Nithya Sukumar; Rahul Siddharthan; Leelavati Narlikar; Ponnusamy Saravanan
• Keywords: Blood Glucose; Male; Economics; Science; Machine Learning; 03 medical and health sciences; Diabetes mellitus; Endocrinology; 0302 clinical medicine; Pregnancy; Health Sciences; Genetics; Humans; Biology; Gestational diabetes; Economic growth; Retrospective Studies; Effects of Bariatric Surgery on Obesity and Diabetes; Q; Postpartum Period; Diabetes; R; Obstetrics and Gynecology; Type 2 diabetes; Insulin resistance; Postpartum period; Gestational Diabetes Mellitus; Type 2 Diabetes; 3. Good health; Pathophysiology and Management of Preeclampsia; Obstetrics; Diabetes, Gestational; Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glucose tolerance test; FOS: Biological sciences; Attendance; Impact of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus on Pregnancy; Medicine; Female; Surgery; RG; Gestation; Research Article

Objective The aim of the present study was to identify the factors associated with non-attendance of immediate postpartum glucose test using a machine learning algorithm following gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) pregnancy.

Method A retrospective cohort study of all GDM women (n = 607) for postpartum glucose test due between January 2016 and December 2019 at the George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust, UK.

Results Sixty-five percent of women attended postpartum glucose test. Type 2 diabetes was diagnosed in 2.8% and 21.6% had persistent dysglycaemia at 6–13 weeks post-delivery. Those who did not attend postpartum glucose test seem to be younger, multiparous, obese, and continued to smoke during pregnancy. They also had higher fasting glucose at antenatal oral glucose tolerance test. Our machine learning algorithm predicted postpartum glucose non-attendance with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.72. The model could achieve a sensitivity of 70% with 66% specificity at a risk score threshold of 0.46. A total of 233 (38.4%) women attended subsequent glucose test at least once within the first two years of delivery and 24% had dysglycaemia. Compared to women who attended postpartum glucose test, those who did not attend had higher conversion rate to type 2 diabetes (2.5% vs 11.4%; p = 0.005).

Conclusion Postpartum screening following GDM is still poor. Women who did not attend postpartum screening appear to have higher metabolic risk and higher conversion to type 2 diabetes by two years post-delivery. Machine learning model can predict women who are unlikely to attend postpartum glucose test using simple antenatal factors. Enhanced, personalised education of these women may improve postpartum glucose screening.