Weight correction of MoM values: which method?
T M Reynolds1, G Vranken, J Van Nueten
1Queens Hospital, Burton on Trent, Staffordshire, UK. tim.reynolds@burtonh-tr.wmids.nhs.uk
Background:
Adjusting maternal serum markers for maternal weight is considered to be a standard practice when screening for pregnancies associated with Down's syndrome. The choice of model for taking maternal weight into account is, however, rarely explicitly evaluated.
Method:
The relationship between the maternal serum markers alphafetoprotein (AFP), human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) and unconjugated oestriol (uE3), determined with the Beckman Coulter access reagents and maternal weight was investigated in a cohort of 752 Belgian women being screened for pregnancy associated with Down's syndrome. Two different models (the log-linear equation and the linear-reciprocal equation) were used to determine the relationship between the serum markers and maternal weight.
Results:
A significant relationship between log(10) multiples of median (MoM) values and weight (kg) was obtained for all markers, and the log-linear model had higher coefficients of determination (r(2)) when compared with the linear-reciprocal model. Weight correction with either method achieved the optimum effect that the correction factor for a woman with a population median weight of 65.5 kg was not significantly different from 1. Simulated weight-corrected MoM values with the two approaches were compared and variation was estimated. The mean difference between the weight-corrected MoM values calculated by the two methods was 7.8% (SD 4.3%) for AFP, 14.0% (4.4%) for HCG and 5.9% (3.2%) for uE3. This resulted in a difference in risk estimate of 1.66-5.34% for Down's syndrome owing to weight correction algorithm differences in women of median weight.
Conclusion:
The log-linear weight correction approach was shown to be marginally more effective by a goodness-of-fit analysis. Differences in weight-corrected MoM values estimated with the two approaches are highly significant (p<0.0001, Wilcoxon's paired sample test), but the effect on risk calculation was not significant. It was observed that the changes in risk became significant the more the MoM correction factors deviated from 1.
Related Concept Videos
Regression Toward the Mean
Mass and Weight
Mass and Weight
Weighted Mean
For example, consider the number of goals scored in the matches of a tournament. While computing the average number of goals scored in the tournament, it may be more important to...
Testing a Claim about Standard Deviation
The hypothesis testing for the claim of population standard deviation (or variance) requires the data and samples to be random and unbiased. The population distribution also must be normal. There is no specific requirement on the sample size as the estimation is based on the chi-square distribution.
As a first step, the hypothesis (null and alternative) concerning the claim about...
Conservation of Mass in Fixed, Nondeforming Control Volume
In the case of a sewer pipe, which can be modeled...


