ArticleInternational journal of neonatal screening2019
The Reliable, Automatic Classification of Neonates in First-Tier MALDI-MS Screening for Sickle Cell Disease.
Article in International journal of neonatal screening, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous research has shown that a MALDI-MS technique can be used to screen for sickle cell disease (SCD), and that a system combining automated sample preparation, MALDI-MS analysis and classification software is a relevant approach for first-line, high-throughput SCD screening. In order to achieve a high-throughput "plug and play" approach while detecting "non-standard" profiles that might prompt the misclassification of a sample, we have incorporated various sets of alerts into the decision support software. These included "biological alert" indicators of a newborn's clinical status (e. g., detecting samples with no or low HbA), and "technical alerts" indicators for the most common non-standard profiles, i.e., those which might otherwise lead to sample misclassification. We evaluated these alerts by applying them to two datasets (produced by different laboratories). Despite the random generation of abnormal spectra by one-off technical faults or due to the nature and quality of the samples, the use of alerts fully secured the process of automatic sample classification. Firstly, cases of β-thalassemia were detected. Secondly, after a visual check on the tagged profiles and reanalysis of the corresponding biological samples, all the samples were correctly reclassified without prompting further alerts. All of the samples for which the results were not tagged were well classified (i.e., sensitivity and specificity = 1). The alerts were mainly designed for detecting false-negative classifications; all the FAS samples misclassified by the software as FA (a false negative) were marked with an alert. The implementation of alerts in the NeoScreening
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.