Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Aug 25;17(8):e0272155. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272155

A multidisciplinary Prematurity Research Cohort Study

Molly J Stout 1, Jessica Chubiz 2, Nandini Raghuraman 2, Peinan Zhao 2, Methodius G Tuuli 3, Lihong V Wang 4, Alison G Cahill 5, Phillip S Cuculich 6, Yong Wang 2, Emily S Jungheim 7, Erik D Herzog 8, Justin Fay 9, Alan L Schwartz 10, George A Macones 5, Sarah K England 2,*
Editor: Prem Singh Shekhawat11
PMCID: PMC9409532  PMID: 36006907

Abstract

Background

Worldwide, 10% of babies are born preterm, defined as a live birth before 37 weeks of gestation. Preterm birth is the leading cause of neonatal death, and survivors face lifelong risks of adverse outcomes. New approaches with large sample sizes are needed to identify strategies to predict and prevent preterm birth. The primary aims of the Washington University Prematurity Research Cohort Study were to conduct three prospective projects addressing possible causes of preterm birth and provide data and samples for future research.

Study design

Pregnant patients were recruited into the cohort between January 2017 and January 2020. Consenting patients were enrolled into the study before 20 weeks’ gestation and followed through delivery. Participants completed demographic and lifestyle surveys; provided maternal blood, placenta samples, and cord blood; and participated in up to three projects focused on underlying physiology of preterm birth: cervical imaging (Project 1), circadian rhythms (Project 2), and uterine magnetic resonance imaging and electromyometrial imaging (Project 3).

Results

A total of 1260 participants were enrolled and delivered during the study period. Of the participants, 706 (56%) were Black/African American, 494 (39%) were nulliparous, and 185 (15%) had a previous preterm birth. Of the 1260 participants, 1220 (97%) delivered a live infant. Of the 1220 with a live birth, 163 (14.1%) had preterm birth, of which 74 (6.1%) were spontaneous preterm birth. Of the 1220 participants with a live birth, 841 participated in cervical imaging, 1047 contributed data and/or samples on circadian rhythms, and 39 underwent uterine magnetic resonance imaging. Of the 39, 25 underwent electromyometrial imaging.

Conclusion

We demonstrate feasibility of recruiting and retaining a diverse cohort in a complex prospective, longitudinal study throughout pregnancy. The extensive clinical, imaging, survey, and biologic data obtained will be used to explore cervical, uterine, and endocrine physiology of preterm birth and can be used to develop novel approaches to predict and prevent preterm birth.

Introduction

Preterm birth, defined as delivery before 37 weeks’ gestation, affects 1 in 10 babies worldwide and is the leading cause of infant mortality [1]. Neonates who survive are at increased risk of lifelong adverse health outcomes [24]. This problem is especially notable in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, where 13% of babies are born preterm and racial disparities are pronounced; 11% of white women and over 17% of Black women deliver preterm [5]. Despite decades of research, we have limited understanding of the causes of preterm birth and few strategies to predict or prevent this adverse pregnancy outcome.

In 2013, Lackritz and colleagues argued that preventing preterm birth would require rigorous research to identify the underlying biological and social determinants. Additionally, they argued for development of new tools to monitor pregnancy and identify those at highest risk of preterm birth [6]. To that end, we formed the Washington University in St. Louis Prematurity Research Center in 2014 with funding from the March of Dimes Foundation, St. Louis Children’s Hospital, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, and Washington University in St. Louis. The Prematurity Research Center united a multidisciplinary group of investigators including obstetricians, engineers, circadian biologists, and cardiac electrophysiologists to approach preterm birth in novel ways.

The three primary projects of the Prematurity Research Center focused on identifying anatomic, physiologic, and behavioral features that are associated with and can be used to predict preterm birth. The first project, Cervical Imaging, used high-speed functional photoacoustic endoscopy to quantify anatomic changes during cervical remodeling [7, 8]. The second project, Circadian Rhythms, used actigraphy, hormone secretion patterns, and surveys to determine whether disruption in circadian rhythms is a risk factor for preterm birth [5]. The third project, Uterine Electrical Activity, developed a novel imaging system to noninvasively map electrical activity of the uterus during labor contractions [912].

To gather data for these projects, we initiated the Prematurity Research Cohort Study to longitudinally follow over 1000 participants from early in pregnancy through delivery. The purpose of this report is to describe the demographics of this cohort and the types of data and biospecimens obtained. In addition, we address the feasibility of conducting a multidisciplinary study in which a diverse cohort of pregnant patients are followed throughout pregnancy.

Methods

The Prematurity Research Cohort Study was a prospective, longitudinal cohort study performed at Washington University in St. Louis Medical Center between January 2017 and January 2020. A convenience sample size of 1000 participants was chosen as a balance between an aggressive enrollment target given annual delivery volumes, the need to recruit and retain participants in multiple projects, and the varied outcomes assessed in each project. No a priori power analysis was conducted. Participants were enrolled in the first or early second trimester and followed through delivery. The study received ethical approval from the Washington University in St. Louis Institutional Review Board. All participants provided written informed consent for collection and use of clinical, biospecimen, imaging, or questionnaire data.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Women were approached for enrollment if they had a singleton pregnancy ≤20 weeks’ gestation (determined by best obstetric estimate including last menstrual period or earliest ultrasound dating available) and met the following inclusion criteria: plan to deliver at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, 18 years of age or older, and English speaking. Patients were not eligible if they were incarcerated or conceived via in vitro fertilization. If a major fetal anomaly was diagnosed during pregnancy, it was reviewed by a maternal-fetal medicine attending physician. If the anomaly affected gestational age at delivery, the patient was withdrawn from the study.

Research staff

A large research staff was assembled to support all projects by enrolling participants, performing longitudinal follow-up, scheduling appointments, coordinating research study visits, contacting study participants who missed study visits, collecting data, and managing specimen collection. The research staff comprised one research coordinator, three registered nurses, one sonographer, three research associates, a research lab coordinator, and one research lab assistant. Additionally, eight staff members worked exclusively on the Labor and Delivery floor to support specimen collection and data acquisition at delivery for multiple studies. This team was available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, and each spent approximately 25% of their effort on the three Prematurity Research Center projects. In addition, two statisticians provided analytic support, and a scientific editor reviewed all scientific presentations and reports.

Participant recruitment and longitudinal follow-up

Patients were approached for enrollment at their initial prenatal appointment at two obstetric clinics on the Washington University Medical Campus. One clinic primarily serves patients with public health insurance, and the other primarily serves patients with private health insurance. All potential participants were offered enrollment into projects 1 and 2. Participants were seen at study visits longitudinally throughout pregnancy and at delivery. Study visits were scheduled to obtain data and samples in each of the three trimesters (Fig 1). All study visits were aligned as much as possible with routine obstetric care to minimize inconvenience to the participants. When additional visits were needed outside of routine medical care visits, appointments were scheduled during routine business hours at the participant’s convenience. For follow-up and retention, participants were contacted by phone and/or text messages to remind them of study visits, and transportation was arranged, if needed, to facilitate study participation. Study personnel were available via phone and text during business hours to answer study-related questions.

Fig 1. Timing and sources of data and specimens collected from the cohort.

Fig 1

Data and specimen collection

The timing and sources of data and specimens collected are illustrated in Fig 1.

Case report form

A comprehensive case report form was used to collect data from electronic medical records on the index pregnancy, previous pregnancies, maternal demographics and medical history, labor and delivery, neonatal outcomes until discharge from hospital, and maternal postpartum visits. Obstetric research personnel including research coordinators and research nurses were trained by a Research Nurse coordinator on abstracting clinical data. For quality assurance, the Research Nurse coordinator performed checks on these data. In cases in which the participant delivered at an outside institution, medical record releases were requested to obtain delivery data. The case report form used to collect pregnancy outcome data is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Case report form for pregnancy outcomes.
Date of delivery
Time of delivery
Preterm birth (<37 weeks)
Spontaneous preterm birth
If spontaneous preterm birth, presentation
Preterm premature rupture of membranes
Dilation
Preterm premature rupture of membranes + dilation
Other (specify)
Unknown/not available
Tocolytic medication during pregnancy
None
Magnesium
Indocin
Terbutaline
Nifedipine
Multiple
Unknown/not available
Gestational age at delivery
If term birth (≥37 weeks), presentation
Premature rupture of membranes
Dilation
Premature rupture of membranes + dilation
Induction
Other (specify)
Unknown/not available
Was magnesium sulfate administered?
Clinical chorioamnionitis
Intrapartum antibiotics
Preterm premature rupture of membranes prophylaxis
Group B streptococcus prophylaxis
Chorioamnionitis
Other
Unknown/not available
Type of delivery
Spontaneous vaginal
Operative vaginal
C-section
Unknown/not available

Project 1—Cervical imaging

A research nurse collected swabs from three areas of the vagina (posterior fornix, mid-vagina, and introitus) via speculum exam immediately before performing cervical imaging. Swabs were refrigerated at 4°C immediately after collection and transferred to -80°C within 8 hours. After swab collection, novel cervical photoendoscopy devices were used to obtain cervical imaging data transvaginally [7, 8]. Additionally, standard transvaginal ultrasound images of the cervix were obtained and used to measure cervical length at each imaging session. Vaginal swabs were collected and cervical imaging was performed once in each trimester. A subset of participants underwent sampling and imaging up to three additional times, with a minimum of four weeks between sampling/imaging sessions.

Project 2—Circadian rhythms

All participants completed validated questionnaires about sleep habits and other lifestyle measures (Fig 1 and S1 Table). Participants were given the option of completing surveys via an online link or taking the questionnaires home and returning them to research staff at their next obstetric or research study visit. Research staff called or texted participants to remind them to bring completed surveys to subsequent study visits. Patients with incomplete third trimester surveys were offered the opportunity to complete the surveys on an iPad during admission for delivery.

Participants provided salivary samples every four hours during one 24-hour period each trimester, with collection starting at 18:00 hours. Participants received supplies to collect saliva (Salimetrics, United Kingdom) at home. Research staff called or texted participants to remind them of instructions for collecting saliva and to bring their samples to their next visit. Participants were instructed to place samples in the freezer until bringing them to the research staff. Once received, the samples were timestamped, stored at -80°C, and processed to measure melatonin and cortisol concentrations by ELISA (Salimetrics Melatonin ELISA kit and Salimetrics Cortisol ELISA kit) in a research laboratory.

Participants wore wrist actigraphy devices (Motionwatch8, CamNTech, United Kingdom) for two-week time periods during their first, second, and third trimesters, as outlined by Martin-Fairey et al. [5]. The actigraphy devices captured minute-level movement and light exposure and remained charged for approximately 90 days, ensuring continuous data collection. Research staff called, texted, or emailed participants to remind them to bring the devices back to the next study visit after the two-week data capture period, or they arranged a courier service for retrieval. If the device was not returned, self-addressed, stamped envelopes were mailed to participants’ addresses with a letter requesting return of the device and offering a $20 gift card if they did so.

Project 3—Uterine electrical activity

Patients meeting the following inclusion/exclusion criteria were offered enrollment into Project 3: Pre-pregnancy body mass index < 40kgm2, willing and able to come to all MRI study appointments, no claustrophobia, no metal implants or non-removable body piercings, and no plans for scheduled cesarean delivery. Sixty-three participants from the total cohort were enrolled to participate in Project 3. Participants included those at low risk for preterm birth (defined as a normal cervical length at anatomy screen and no history of spontaneous preterm birth) and those at high risk for preterm birth (defined as a previous spontaneous preterm birth less than 35 weeks or a cervical length less than 2 cm during the index pregnancy). Those in the low-risk group underwent uterine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 37 weeks’ gestation, and those in the high-risk group underwent MRI at 24, 28, and 32 weeks gestation. Once patients presented for induction or in spontaneous labor and were in active labor (defined as greater than 4 cm dilation and regular contractions), body surface potential mapping was performed for approximately one hour. The combined uterine MRI and body surface potential mapping resulted in data used for electromyometrial imaging (EMMI), which has been described elsewhere [912]. MRI was performed in a 3T Siemens Prisma/Vida whole-body MRI Scanner with a radial volume interpolated breath-hold examination fast T1-weighted sequence. Patients who also consented to be a part of the cervical imaging project had MRI performed on the same day.

Biological specimens

Maternal blood serum and plasma samples were collected throughout pregnancy during routine clinical lab visits during business hours (or drawn by research staff if labs were done elsewhere or missed), refrigerated at 4°C, and centrifuged at 1620 x g for 5 minutes at 4°C within 12 hours of collection. Aliquots (1 mL) were stored at -80°C. Cord blood serum and plasma were collected at delivery and processed in the same manner as the maternal blood. In cases in which cord blood was not collected, infant buccal swabs were collected with the mother’s consent. At least 30 minutes after the infant was fed, a swab was rubbed firmly against the inside cheek and lower and upper lip for one minute and stored at room temperature. Four sets of placenta specimens (1x3 cm) were collected at delivery from each of four sites: chorionic amnion, basal plate, villous tissue, and subchorion. All placental samples were snap frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at -80°C. Amniotic fluid was collected at the time of delivery from 56 patients who underwent unlabored, intact cesarean section. Fluid was centrifuged at 1620 x g for 5 minutes at 4°C and then stored at -80°C.

Participant incentives

All participants received gift cards for completing study visits. Participants received $25 gift cards each trimester for completing the combination of surveys, wrist-worn actigraphy, and 24-hour saliva collection. Participants also received $25 gift cards for each completed transvaginal imaging exam, $50 gift cards for each MRI, and a $50 gift card at delivery if the majority of study procedures were completed. Participants also received a small non-monetary gift (e.g., pen, reusable bag, children’s book) at the completion of each study visit and at delivery. For participants without reliable transportation, taxis or Uber Health cars were arranged for transport to and from study appointments at no cost to the participant. For prolonged study visits that spanned a mealtime (typically 3+ hours; combining clinical appointment with transvaginal imaging and MRI), a meal was provided to the participant. Granola bars and other small snacks were available to participants for shorter study visits. Crayons and coloring pages were offered to the children of participants who attended study visits.

Results

Participant attrition and demographics

A flow diagram of participant enrollment and outcomes is provided in Fig 2. We screened 7478 patients for potential enrollment; 2718 (36.3%) met inclusion criteria (<20 weeks’ gestation, age >18 years, English speaking) and were approached. Among those approached, 1523 (56.0%) gave consent and enrolled. Of the enrolled participants, 190 (12.5%) were lost to follow-up and 73 (4.8%) withdrew and were not included in the final analyses. We have complete clinical and outcome data on 1260 (82.7%) participants.

Fig 2. Flow diagram of participant enrollment and outcomes.

Fig 2

cPAE (cervical photoacoustic endoscopy).

Demographic characteristics of the 1260 participants are described in Table 2. The majority of participants reported being employed (70.8%), Black/African American (56.0%), and single (61.2%). More than one-third of participants (36.9%) reported an annual income <$25,000, 44.8% had public insurance or were uninsured, and 53.9% had private insurance.

Table 2. Demographic data of study participants.

Total enrolled with outcome data N = 1260
Education
    Less than 12th grade 77 (6.1%)
    High school degree/GED 583 (46.3%)
    College degree (4 years) 179 (14.2%)
    Graduate degree 250 (19.8%)
    Missing/Unknown 171 (13.6%)
Marital status
    Single 771 (61.2%)
    Married 460 (36.5%)
    Other 29 (2.3%)
Employment
    Yes 892 (70.8%)
    No 273 (21.7%)
    Student 39 (3.1%)
    Missing/Unknown 56 (4.4%)
Annual income (T1)
    Government Assistance 92 (7.3%)
    <$25,000 465 (36.9%)
    $25,000-$74,999 265 (21.0%)
    $75,000-$124,999 155 (12.3%)
    ≥$125,000 160 (12.7%)
    Missing/Unknown 123 (12.7%)
Insurance
    Medicaid 410 (32.5%)
    Medicare 21 (1.7%)
    Individual/Group Health Insurance 679 (53.9%)
    VA/Military 12 (1.0%)
    Uninsured 134 (10.6%)
    Missing/Unknown 4 (0.3%)
Race
    Black or African-American 706 (56.0%)
    White 501 (39.8%)
    Other 53 (4.2%)
Ethnicity
    Non-Hispanic 1213 (96.3%)
    Hispanic 36 (2.9%)
    Unknown 11 (0.9%)
English first language 1251 (99.3%)

Pregnancy characteristics and outcomes

Table 3 demonstrates maternal and pregnancy characteristics in our cohort. The majority (n = 766, 60.8%) were multiparous, and 185 (14.7%) had a history of preterm birth. The most common medical complications among these participants was asthma and chronic hypertension. The most common previous pregnancy complications were gestational hypertension/preeclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction (Table 3).

Table 3. Maternal and pregnancy characteristics.

Gravidity
    Gravida, median (IQR) 2 (1,4)
Parity
    Nulliparous 494 (39.2%)
    Multiparous 766 (60.8%)
History of preterm birth
    Indicated 10 (0.8%)
    Spontaneous 175 (13.9%)
        24–33 6/7 weeks 107 (8.5%)
        34–36 6/7 weeks 68 (5.4%)
History of pregnancy and medical complications
    Asthma 248 (19.7%)
    Gestational hypertension/Preeclampsia 214 (17.0%)
    Chronic hypertension 144 (11.4%)
    Diabetes 71 (5.6%)
    Intrauterine growth restriction 60 (4.8%)
    Thyroid disease 57 (4.5%)
    Anomaly 47 (3.7%)
    Heart disease 37 (2.9%)
    Renal disease 29 (2.3%)
    Polyhydramnios 22 (1.7%)
    Oligohydramnios 10 (0.8%)
    Lupus 6 (0.5%)

Except where noted, data are presented as n (%); IQR, interquartile range

In the cohort of 1260 participants, there were 1220 (96.8%) live births, 23 stillbirths ≥ 20 weeks, and 17 pregnancy losses <20 weeks (Table 4). Among the 1220 participants with a live birth, 529 (43.3%) participants underwent induction of labor, and 368 (30.2%) were delivered via cesarean section. Among the 1220 participants with a live birth, 1057 (86.6%) delivered at term and 163 (13.4%) delivered preterm (< 37 weeks). Of the live-born neonates, 145 (11.9%) required neonatal intensive care unit admission, 145 (11.9%) had low birthweight (<2500 g), and 153 (13.1%) were small for gestational age, defined as birthweight <10th percentile for gestational age.

Table 4. Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes.

Birth outcome
    Live birth 1220 (96.8%)
    Loss, <20 weeks 17 (1.3%)
    Loss, 20+ weeks 23 (1.8%)
Gestational age at birth
    <24 weeks 3 (0.2%)
    24 weeks-31 weeks 6 days 32 (2.6%)
    32 weeks-36 weeks 6 days 128 (10.5%)
    37+ weeks 1057 (86.6%)
Preterm Birth
    Induced 89 (7.3%)
    Spontaneous 74 (6.8%)
    x00A0;  <24 weeks 2 (.002%)
    x00A0;  24–33 weeks 6 days 22 (1.8%)
    x00A0;  34–36 weeks 6 days 50 (4.1%)
Delivery method
    Vaginal 806 (66.0%)
    Operative vaginal 46 (3.8%)
    Cesarean section 368 (30.2%)
Reason for induction (N = 529) *
    Oligohydramnios 6 (1.1%)
    PROM 8 (1.5%)
    PPROM 7 (1.3%)
    Preeclampsia/eclampsia 59 (11.2%)
    Comorbidity at 39 weeks 35 (6.6%)
    Elective 236 (44.6%)
    Non-reassuring antenatal testing 40 (7.6%)
    Gestational Diabetes 16 (3.0%)
    Postdates 64 (12.1%)
    Intrauterine growth restriction 46 (8.7%)
    Macrosomia 2 (0.4%)
    polyhydramnios 4 (0.8%)
    Other 76 (14.4%)
Neonatal Sex
    Female 581 (47.6%)
    Male 639 (52.4%)
Apgar score at 1 minute
    0–3 59 (4.8%)
    4–6 83 (6.8%)
    7–10 1053 (86.3%)
Apgar score at 5 minutes
    0–3 8 (0.7%)
    4–6 40 (3.3%)
    7–10 1163 (95.3%)
NICU information
    NICU admission 145 (11.9%)
    Length of NICU stay in days 8 (4, 21)
Neonatal health outcomes
Low birth weight (<2500 grams) 145 (11.9%)
Small, for gestational age (<10th percentile) 153 (13.1%)
Arterial umbilical cord pH 7.26 (7.22, 7.31)
Newborn death within 28 days 8 (0.7%)

*The percentage of reason for induction is calculated according to the total number of inductions. Some participants had more than one reason for induction.

Data represent n (%) or median (interquartile range).

Data and specimen collection associated with study procedures

Collectively, study participants attended 6135 study visits, which included 1892 cervical imaging exams, 39 uterine MRIs, 2239 actigraphy recordings, 28,240 lifestyle surveys, and over 12,000 biological specimens (see Table 5). Fewer participants provided saliva samples in the first trimester than in the second and third trimesters. Conversely, more participants completed lifestyle surveys and provided actigraphy data in the first trimester than in the second and third trimesters. More patients underwent transvaginal imaging, which required additional scheduling after consent, in the first trimester than in the second and third trimesters.

Table 5. Sample and survey numbers from participants with live births.

Samples and Data Collected First Study Visit Second Study Visit Third Study Visit Delivery
Biologic Samples
    Maternal blood 795 855 864 1023
    Saliva 453 822 778 -
    Vaginal swabs 212 791 588 -
    Maternal buffy coat 790 855 863 430
    Placenta - - - 1047
    Cord blood - - - 870
    Cord blood buffy - - - 864
    Amniotic fluid - - - 56
    Infant buccal swab - - - 211
Cervical Imaging 673 629 590 n/a
Actigraphy 737 806 696 n/a
Surveys
    Perceived Stress Scale 1136 786 825 n/a
    Munich Chronotype Questionnaire 1047 784 823 n/a
    Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index 1039 783 822 n/a
    Berlin Questionnaire 984 781 823 n/a
    Women’s Health Initiative Insomnia Rating Scale 983 782 821 n/a
    Epworth Sleepiness Scale 1035 783 821 n/a
    Intern. Restless Legs 1032 783 821 n/a
    Kaiser Physical Activity 1030 781 821 n/a
    Edinburgh Postnatal Depression 1212 874 866 n/a
    Demographic/Med. Hist. 1111 801 845 n/a
    Difficult Life Circumstances n/a n/a n/a 654
    NIH Diet Questionnaire n/a n/a n/a 751

A total of 1220 participants had live births.

A total of 63 participants provided consent to undergo uterine MRI and electrical mapping of the uterus (electromyometrial imaging [EMMI]) at labor (Table 6). A total of 24 (17 low-risk, 7 high-risk) participants withdrew before the MRI for reasons such as delivery before MRI (8), lost contact (6), and patient/family request to withdraw (6) (Table 6). A total of 25 participants in the low-risk group and 14 in the high-risk group underwent MRI at least once during pregnancy (Table 7). In addition, 20 participants in the low-risk group and 5 in the high-risk group underwent EMMI at labor (Tables 6 and 7). Reasons for missed EMMI included: not notified by Labor and Delivery staff (3), delivered at offsite hospital (3), COVID-19 research shut-down (2), and emergent cesarean section (2). Among those who underwent both MRI and EMMI, none of the low-risk participants and two of the high-risk participants delivered preterm (Table 6).

Table 6. Project 3 participants.

Cohort Consented Withdrew Reasons for Withdrawal Underwent MRI Missed EMMI Reasons for Missed EMMI Underwent MRI and EMMI
Low Risk 42 17 Delivered before MRI (7)
Per request (5)
Lost contact (4)
Medical issue (1)
25 5 Missed by L&D staff (3)
Delivered precipitously (2)
20 (0 preterm, 20 term)
High Risk 21 7 Lost contact (2)
Delivered before MRI (1)
Lethal anomaly (1)
Spontaneous abortion (1)
Per request (1)
Social issues (1)
14 9 Delivered at offsite hospital (3)
COVID (2)
Emergency cesarean (2)
Intrauterine Fetal Demise (1)
Delivered precipitously (1)
5 (2 preterm, 3 term)

EMMI, electromyometrial imaging; L&D, Labor and Delivery; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging

Table 7. Project 3 procedures performed.

Group and procedure Timing
24 weeks 28 weeks 32 weeks 37 weeks Labor
Low Risk—Uterine MRI - - - 25
High Risk—Uterine MRI 14 9 9 -
Low Risk—EMMI - - - - 20
High Risk—EMMI - - - - 5

EMMI, electromyometrial imaging; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging

Discussion

The Prematurity Research Cohort Study was a multi-faceted study aimed at identifying mechanisms underlying preterm birth. This report demonstrates the feasibility of conducting a longitudinal study in pregnant participants and maintaining high consent and retention rates. Moreover, we describe the rich data and specimen source now available for longitudinal studies of pregnancy.

The primary intent of establishing this cohort was to identify causes of, and develop novel diagnostics to predict, preterm birth. Analyses of data from surveys, swabs, specimens, and imaging are ongoing for the three projects. Specimens are also banked for future research to identify both risk factors and potential biomarkers. The data and specimens we collected will be useful for addressing maternal and neonatal health disparities. This is because over 50% of the participants were Black, and all lived in the St. Louis, Missouri, area, where Black women have a 50% higher risk of preterm birth than white women [5].

Feasibility

Within three years, we enrolled 1260 participants, and we performed 6135 study visits spanning all trimesters. Notably, 977 women attended three or more visits over the course of pregnancy. We collected over 12,000 biological specimens with linked clinical and imaging data. Among the 1260 enrolled participants, 859 (68.1%) participated in Project 1, Project 2, or both, the two projects open to all participants.

Study participants were more likely to comply with study procedures that could be timed with clinical appointments or labs (e.g., blood draws, surveys done in waiting room or exam room). Fewer data and specimens were collected in the third trimester than in the first and second trimesters. In part, this was because some participants delivered before their third trimester study visit.

Scientific implications

The Prematurity Research Cohort Study has generated a rich set of data and specimens that can be used to test hypotheses pertaining to mechanisms of preterm birth and preventive targets. This dataset and specimen bank will also allow investigators to explore new questions regarding preterm birth, use imaging and biomarkers to assess preterm birth risk in the first trimester, and identify modifiable lifestyle factors that increase risk of preterm birth [6]. Our cohort was predominantly those with the highest risk of preterm birth: women of color and women with socioeconomic stressors. Our cohort had a higher percentage of African Americans (56%) than the percentage in the US population (13.4%) and had high rates of several chronic conditions, which likely reflects the fact that the study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital.

Our experience reveals that pregnant patients are willing to participate in studies that require multiple research visits, undergo serial transvaginal ultrasounds or MRI, answer extensive surveys, wear actigraphy monitors, and collect timed saliva samples and other biological specimens beyond those required for routine clinical care. Thus, other researchers should recognize that pregnant patients both can and should be included in studies for obstetric and non-obstetric outcomes.

Cost and resource utilization

Conducting this study required extensive investments of time and financial resources. Full or partial salaries were required for the 80 staff members, 31 trainees, and 23 faculty members who participated in various aspects of the study. In addition, the study required abundant supplies (e.g., blood and placenta sample collection tubes), dedicated freezer space, gift cards, and transportation arrangements. Such costs and resources are important to consider in planning any longitudinal study in pregnancy. To reduce costs, future studies could maximize use of web-based and social media tools to optimize recruitment and retention [13, 14]. Although we did not formally assess patient-reported acceptability of participating in the cohort study, future work should investigate barriers and facilitators to patient adherence to multiple research visits during pregnancy.

In summary, we report successful enrollment and follow-up of a large longitudinal cohort of pregnant patients. Additionally, we describe the substantial investments made by participants and research personnel to collect data and specimens. We are optimistic that their contributions will lead to new discoveries to improve the health of pregnant patients and their babies.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Sleep and lifestyle data surveys collected from participants.

(DOCX)

S1 File

(DOC)

Acknowledgments

We thank the Prematurity Research Cohort Study participants for their invaluable contributions to preterm birth research. We thank the research staff for their tireless efforts enrolling and following participants and collecting and managing data and specimens. We thank Deborah Frank, PhD, Stephanie Pizzella, Christine Kramer, and Jillian Ashley-Martin, PhD, for editorial comments and Anthony Bartley for graphical assistance.

Data Availability

The data are not publicly available as the minimal data set for this study on pregnant participants contains identifying patient-level data which cannot be suitably de-identified or aggregated. Additionally, a subset of participants did not consent for future research in the patient consent form approved by the Institutional Review Board at Washington University in St. Louis. Proposals for access to this data should be directed to christinekramer@wustl.edu, Senior Clinical Research Coordinator in the Division of Clinical Research in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. To gain access, data requestors will need to sign a data access agreement.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by a research grant from the March of Dimes Foundation (to M.J.S, P.Z, M.G.T., L.V.W., A.G.C, Y.W., E.S.J., E.D.H., J.F, A.L.S., G.A.M. and S.K.E.). The cohort was make possible by support institutional support from St. Louis Children’s Hospital, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, and Washington University School of Medicine.

References

  • 1.Liu L, Oza S, Hogan D, Chu Y, Perin J, Zhu J, et al. Global, regional, and national causes of under-5 mortality in 2000–15: an updated systematic analysis with implications for the Sustainable Development Goals. Lancet. 2016;388(10063):3027–35. Epub 2016/11/15. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31593-8 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5161777. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Blencowe H, Cousens S, Oestergaard MZ, Chou D, Moller AB, Narwal R, et al. National, regional, and worldwide estimates of preterm birth rates in the year 2010 with time trends since 1990 for selected countries: a systematic analysis and implications. Lancet. 2012;379(9832):2162–72. Epub 2012/06/12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60820-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Frey HA, Klebanoff MA. The epidemiology, etiology, and costs of preterm birth. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;21(2):68–73. Epub 2016/01/23. doi: 10.1016/j.siny.2015.12.011 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Marlow N, Wolke D, Bracewell MA, Samara M, Group EPS. Neurologic and developmental disability at six years of age after extremely preterm birth. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(1):9–19. Epub 2005/01/07. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa041367 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Martin-Fairey CA, Zhao P, Wan L, Roenneberg T, Fay J, Ma X, et al. Pregnancy Induces an Earlier Chronotype in Both Mice and Women. J Biol Rhythms. 2019;34(3):323–31. Epub 2019/04/26. doi: 10.1177/0748730419844650 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lackritz EM, Wilson CB, Guttmacher AE, Howse JL, Engmann CM, Rubens CE, et al. A solution pathway for preterm birth: accelerating a priority research agenda. Lancet Glob Health. 2013;1(6):e328–30. Epub 2014/08/12. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(13)70120-7 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5589519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Qu Y, Hu P, Shi J, Maslov K, Zhao P, Li C, et al. In vivo characterization of connective tissue remodeling using infrared photoacoustic spectra. J Biomed Opt. 2018;23(12):1–6. Epub 2018/12/07. doi: 10.1117/1.JBO.23.12.121621 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6318810. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Qu Y, Li C, Shi J, Chen R, Xu S, Rafsanjani H, et al. Transvaginal fast-scanning optical-resolution photoacoustic endoscopy. J Biomed Opt. 2018;23(12):1–4. Epub 2018/12/07. doi: 10.1117/1.JBO.23.12.121617 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6279961. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wang H, Wang Y. Spatial-dependent regularization to solve the inverse problem in electromyometrial imaging. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2020;58(8):1651–65. Epub 2020/05/28. doi: 10.1007/s11517-020-02183-z ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7347447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wang H, Wu W, Talcott M, McKinstry RC, Woodard PK, Macones GA, et al. Electromyometrial imaging dataset of electromyograms and isochrone maps under deformation/electrical noise contaminations. Data Brief. 2020;28:105078. Epub 2020/01/21. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2019.105078 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6956746. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wang H, Wu W, Talcott M, McKinstry RC, Woodard PK, Macones GA, et al. Accuracy of electromyometrial imaging of uterine contractions in clinical environment. Comput Biol Med. 2020;116:103543. Epub 2019/12/02. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2019.103543 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7021013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wu W, Wang H, Zhao P, Talcott M, Lai S, McKinstry RC, et al. Noninvasive high-resolution electromyometrial imaging of uterine contractions in a translational sheep model. Sci Transl Med. 2019;11(483). Epub 2019/03/15. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aau1428 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lawrie TA, Betran AP, Singata-Madliki M, Ciganda A, Hofmeyr GJ, Belizan JM, et al. Participant recruitment and retention in longitudinal preconception randomized trials: lessons learnt from the Calcium And Pre-eclampsia (CAP) trial. Trials. 2017;18(1):500. Epub 2017/10/28. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2220-0 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5658921. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Richiardi L, Baussano I, Vizzini L, Douwes J, Pearce N, Merletti F, et al. Feasibility of recruiting a birth cohort through the Internet: the experience of the NINFEA cohort. Eur J Epidemiol. 2007;22(12):831–7. Epub 2007/10/24. doi: 10.1007/s10654-007-9194-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Alireza Abdollah Shamshirsaz

28 Feb 2022

PONE-D-21-27892A Multidisciplinary Prematurity Research Cohort Study                                                                                    PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sarah England,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 14 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alireza Abdollah Shamshirsaz

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you, Dr. Sarah England, for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Congratulations on an enormous logistical undertaking.

How was the cohort size determined?

Why were patients conceived via IVF excluded?

The authors state that all patients were offered enrollment into projects 1 and 2. How were patients selected for project 3?

Reviewer #2: This study presents the methodology in establishing a large cohort to investigate preterm birth.

Overall this is a well written and presents a well-designed and elaborated methodology in recruiting patients to the cohort.

Since this manuscript only presents the methodology and does not reveal any of the actual results of that were investigated I question its interest to the readers.

Numerous studies have been previously published on preterm birth some were prospective randomized and some had large cohorts. I believe the ingenuity of this study lies on the three presented investigated topics and less on the recruitment process.

My main concern is whether publishing a prelim manuscript as presented here is even relevant and wonder if all this should just be embedded in the manuscripts publishing the results.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Aug 25;17(8):e0272155. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272155.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Apr 2022

We thank the reviewers for the thorough and positive review of the manuscript. We have responded to all the comments below.

How was the cohort size determined? A convenience sample size of 1000 participants was chosen as a balance between an aggressive enrollment target given annual delivery volumes, the need to recruit and retain participants in multiple projects, and the varied outcomes assessed in each project. No a priori power analysis was conducted. We added this information to the Methods section (Lines 93–96).

Why were patients conceived via IVF excluded? IVF patients were excluded from this cohort because of the a priori increased risk of preterm birth and pregnancy complications. Further, it was unknown at the time whether the IVF process modified the endocrine physiology of pregnancy, including unknown impacts of fresh and frozen cycles on hormonal states.

The authors state that all patients were offered enrollment into projects 1 and 2. How were patients selected for project 3? Patients meeting the following inclusion/exclusion criteria were offered enrollment into Project 3: Pre-pregnancy body mass index < 40kgm2, willing and able to come to all MRI study appointments, no claustrophobia, no metal implants or non-removable body piercings, and no plans for scheduled cesarean delivery. We added this information to the manuscript (Lines 182-185).

Reviewer #2: This study presents the methodology in establishing a large cohort to investigate preterm birth. Overall this is a well written and presents a well-designed and elaborated methodology in recruiting patients to the cohort. Since this manuscript only presents the methodology and does not reveal any of the actual results of that were investigated. I question its interest to the readers. Numerous studies have been previously published on preterm birth, some were prospective randomized and some had large cohorts. I believe the ingenuity of this study lies on the three presented investigated topics and less on the recruitment process. My main concern is whether publishing a prelim manuscript as presented here is even relevant and wonder if all this should just be embedded in the manuscripts publishing the results.

We argue that the longitudinal approach and recruitment success in a diverse population warrants a separate manuscript independent of the results. Furthermore, the three projects for which this cohort was formed differ substantially from one another. Thus, our plan is to describe the cohort and recruitment process in this index manuscript and then refer back to this manuscript in all future publications that contain results from the projects and future efforts. We argue this approach is more reader friendly than embedding all the information into future individual manuscripts. This approach has been modeled by several other large-scale and longitudinal cohort studies in pregnancy and women’s health. Examples include PMIDs 34610322, 21819423, and 27459450.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_final.docx

Decision Letter 1

Prem Singh Shekhawat

14 Jul 2022

A Multidisciplinary Prematurity Research Cohort Study

PONE-D-21-27892R1

Dear Dr. England,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Prem Singh Shekhawat, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for completing minor revisions to your original submission.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors appear to have appropriately addressed the reviewers' comments. I find the manuscript suitable for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Prem Singh Shekhawat

16 Aug 2022

PONE-D-21-27892R1

A Multidisciplinary Prematurity Research Cohort Study

Dear Dr. England:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Prem Singh Shekhawat

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Sleep and lifestyle data surveys collected from participants.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File

    (DOC)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_final.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data are not publicly available as the minimal data set for this study on pregnant participants contains identifying patient-level data which cannot be suitably de-identified or aggregated. Additionally, a subset of participants did not consent for future research in the patient consent form approved by the Institutional Review Board at Washington University in St. Louis. Proposals for access to this data should be directed to christinekramer@wustl.edu, Senior Clinical Research Coordinator in the Division of Clinical Research in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. To gain access, data requestors will need to sign a data access agreement.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES