Search

In the following, we present updated results on the spindown of the canonical magnetic early B-type star sigma Ori E using recent photometric data from various ground- and space-based observatories. We find that these new observations are consistent with the previously detected spindown, and conclusively rule out a linear change in the O-C diagram (which would be indicative of a different, but constant, period)., {"references":["Caballero, J. A. 2007, A&A, 466, 917","Hesser, J. E., Walborn, N. R. & Ugarte, P. P. 1976, Nature, 262, 116","Hesser, J. E., Ugarte, P. P. & Moreno, H. 1977, ApJL, 216, 31","Keszthelyi, Z., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 518","Mikulasek, Z. 2016, CoSka, 46, 95","Oksala, M. E., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 959","Shultz, M. E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5558","Townsend, R. H. D. & Owocki, S. P. 2005, MNRAS, 357, 251","Townsend, R. H. D., et al. 2010, ApJL, 714, 318","Townsend, R. H. D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 33","ud-Doula, A., Owocki, S. P. & Townsend, R. H. D. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 97"]}

Objective: Stillbirth is a potentially preventable complication of pregnancy. Identifying women at risk can guide decisions on closer surveillance or timing of birth to prevent fetal death.Prognostic models have been developed to predict the risk of stillbirth, but none have yet been externally validated. We externally validated published prediction models for stillbirth using individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to assess their predictive performance. Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, DH-DATA and AMED databases from inception to December 2020 to identify stillbirth prediction models. We included studies that developed or updated prediction models for stillbirth for use at any time during pregnancy. IPD from cohorts within the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complication (IPPIC) Network were used to externally validate the identified prediction models whose individual variables were available in the IPD. We assessed the risk of bias of the models and IPD using PROBAST, and reported discriminative performance using the C-statistic, and calibration performance using calibration plots, calibration slopeand calibration-in-the-large. We estimated performance measures separately in each study, and then summarised across studies using random-effects meta-analysis. Clinical utility was assessed using net benefit. Results: We identified 17 studies reporting the development of 40 prognostic models for stillbirth. None of the models were previously externally validated, and only a fifth (20%, 8/40) reported the full model equation. We were able to validate three of these models using the IPD from 19 cohort studies (491,201 pregnant women) within the IPPIC Network database. Based on evaluating their development studies, all three models had an overall high risk of bias according to PROBAST. In our IPD meta-analysis, the models had summary C-statistics ranging from 0.53 to 0.65; summary calibration slopes of 0.40to 0.88, and generally with observed risks predictions that were too extreme compared to observed risks; and little to no clinical utility as assessed by net benefit. However, there remained uncertainty in performance for some models due to small available sample sizes. Conclusion: The three validated models generally showed poor and uncertain predictive performancein new data, with limited evidence to support their clinical application. Findings suggest methodological shortcomings in their development including overfitting of models. Further research is needed to further validate these and other models, identify stronger prognostic factors, and to develop more robust prediction models

OBJECTIVE: Stillbirth is a potentially preventable complication of pregnancy. Identifying women at high risk of stillbirth can guide decisions on the need for closer surveillance and timing of delivery in order to prevent fetal death. Prognostic models have been developed to predict the risk of stillbirth, but none has yet been validated externally. In this study, we externally validated published prediction models for stillbirth using individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to assess their predictive performance. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, DH-DATA and AMED databases were searched from inception to December 2020 to identify studies reporting stillbirth prediction models. Studies that developed or updated prediction models for stillbirth for use at any time during pregnancy were included. IPD from cohorts within the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications (IPPIC) Network were used to validate externally the identified prediction models whose individual variables were available in the IPD. The risk of bias of the models and cohorts was assessed using the Prediction study Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). The discriminative performance of the models was evaluated using the C-statistic, and calibration was assessed using calibration plots, calibration slope and calibration-in-the-large. Performance measures were estimated separately in each cohort, as well as summarized across cohorts using random-effects meta-analysis. Clinical utility was assessed using net benefit. RESULTS: Seventeen studies reporting the development of 40 prognostic models for stillbirth were identified. None of the models had been previously validated externally, and the full model equation was reported for only one-fifth (20%, 8/40) of the models. External validation was possible for three of these models, using IPD from 19 cohorts (491 201 pregnant women) within the IPPIC Network database. Based on evaluation of the model development studies, all three models had an overall high risk of bias, according to PROBAST. In the IPD meta-analysis, the models had summary C-statistics ranging from 0.53 to 0.65 and summary calibration slopes ranging from 0.40 to 0.88, with risk predictions that were generally too extreme compared with the observed risks. The models had little to no clinical utility, as assessed by net benefit. However, there remained uncertainty in the performance of some models due to small available sample sizes. CONCLUSIONS: The three validated stillbirth prediction models showed generally poor and uncertain predictive performance in new data, with limited evidence to support their clinical application. The findings suggest methodological shortcomings in their development, including overfitting. Further research is needed to further validate these and other models, identify stronger prognostic factors and develop more robust prediction models. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.