Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34261070›Full record

SynthesisNeonatology2021

Machine Learning Models for Predicting Neonatal Mortality: A Systematic Review.

Cheyenne Mangold, Sarah Zoretic, Keerthi Thallapureddy, Axel Moreira, Kevin Chorath, Alvaro Moreira

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neonatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Development of a peripheral blood transcriptomic gene signature to predict bronchopulmonary dysplasia.American journal of physiology. Lung cellular and molecular physiology · 2023
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

6 authors.

Cheyenne MangoldDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Sarah ZoreticDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA, sarahzoretic@gmail.com.
Keerthi ThallapureddyDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Axel MoreiraDepartment of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Kevin ChorathDepartment of Otolaryngology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Alvaro MoreiraDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.

Funding

Genomic determinants of bronchopulmonary dysplasia development in humans and an animal modelK23HD101701 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI MOREIRA, ALVARO G · 2021 to 2024
$652k
NICHD NIH HHS K23 HD101701
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionApproximately 7,000 newborns die every day, accounting for almost half of child deaths under 5 years of age. Deciphering which neonates are at increased risk for mortality can have an important global impact. As such, integrating high computational technology (e.g., artificial intelligence [AI]) may help identify the early and potentially modifiable predictors of neonatal mortality. Therefore, the objective of this study was to collate, critically appraise, and analyze neonatal prediction studies that included AI.

methodsA literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane, OVID, and Google Scholar. We included studies that used AI (e.g., machine learning (ML) and deep learning) to formulate prediction models for neonatal death. We excluded small studies (n < 500 individuals) and studies using only antenatal factors to predict mortality. Two independent investigators screened all articles for inclusion. The data collection consisted of study design, number of models, features used per model, feature importance, internal and/or external validation, and calibration analysis. Our primary outcome was the average area under the receiving characteristic curve (AUC) or sensitivity and specificity for all models included in each study.

resultsOf 434 articles, 11 studies were included. The total number of participants was 1.26 M with gestational ages ranging from 22 weeks to term. Number of features ranged from 3 to 66 with timing of prediction as early as 5 min of life to a maximum of 7 days of age. The average number of models per study was 4, with neural network, random forest, and logistic regression comprising the most used models (58.3%). Five studies (45.5%) reported calibration plots and 2 (18.2%) conducted external validation. Eight studies reported results by AUC and 5 studies reported the sensitivity and specificity. The AUC varied from 58.3% to 97.0%. The mean sensitivities ranged from 63% to 80% and specificities from 78% to 99%. The best overall model was linear discriminant analysis, but it also had a high number of features (n = 17). DISCUSSION/

conclusionML models can accurately predict death in neonates. This analysis demonstrates the most commonly used predictors and metrics for AI prediction models for neonatal mortality. Future studies should focus on external validation, calibration, as well as deployment of applications that can be readily accessible to health-care providers.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePerinatal DeathChildFemaleGestational AgeHumansInfantInfant MortalityInfant, NewbornMachine LearningPregnancyArtificial intelligenceMortalityNeonateSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34261070
PMCPMC8887024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.