Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33077570›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Prediction of perinatal death using machine learning models: a birth registry-based cohort study in northern Tanzania.

Innocent B Mboya, Michael J Mahande, Mohanad Mohammed, Joseph Obure, Henry G Mwambi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Identifying risk of stillbirth using machine learning.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Innocent B MboyaSchool of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa ib.mboya@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-9861-5879
Michael J MahandeDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Public Health, Kilimanjaro Christian Medical University College, Moshi, Tanzania.ORCID 0000-0002-7750-7657
Mohanad MohammedSchool of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Joseph ObureDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Center, Moshi, Tanzania.
Henry G MwambiSchool of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe aimed to determine the key predictors of perinatal deaths using machine learning models compared with the logistic regression model.

designA secondary data analysis using the Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre (KCMC) Medical Birth Registry cohort from 2000 to 2015. We assessed the discriminative ability of models using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) and the net benefit using decision curve analysis.

settingThe KCMC is a zonal referral hospital located in Moshi Municipality, Kilimanjaro region, Northern Tanzania. The Medical Birth Registry is within the hospital grounds at the Reproductive and Child Health Centre.

participantsSingleton deliveries (n=42 319) with complete records from 2000 to 2015. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Perinatal death (composite of stillbirths and early neonatal deaths). These outcomes were only captured before mothers were discharged from the hospital.

resultsThe proportion of perinatal deaths was 3.7%. There were no statistically significant differences in the predictive performance of four machine learning models except for bagging, which had a significantly lower performance (AUC 0.76, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.79, p=0.006) compared with the logistic regression model (AUC 0.78, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.81). However, in the decision curve analysis, the machine learning models had a higher net benefit (ie, the correct classification of perinatal deaths considering a trade-off between false-negatives and false-positives)-over the logistic regression model across a range of threshold probability values.

conclusionsIn this cohort, there was no significant difference in the prediction of perinatal deaths between machine learning and logistic regression models, except for bagging. The machine learning models had a higher net benefit, as its predictive ability of perinatal death was considerably superior over the logistic regression model. The machine learning models, as demonstrated by our study, can be used to improve the prediction of perinatal deaths and triage for women at risk.

Indexed as

Perinatal DeathChildCohort StudiesFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornLogistic ModelsMachine LearningPregnancyRegistriesTanzaniaepidemiologyneonatologyperinatologyprenatal diagnosisreproductive medicine

Identifiers

PMID33077570
PMCPMC7574940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.