Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35509018›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022

Application of machine learning methods for predicting infant mortality in Rwanda: analysis of Rwanda demographic health survey 2014-15 dataset.

Emmanuel Mfateneza, Pierre Claver Rutayisire, Emmanuel Biracyaza, Sanctus Musafiri, Willy Gasafari Mpabuka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Development and validation of a machine learning model to predict prognosis in HIV-negative cryptococcal meningitis patients: a multicenter study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2023
    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.

Emmanuel MfatenezaAfrican Centre of Excellence in Data Science, University of Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda. mfatenezae@gmail.com.
Pierre Claver RutayisireApplied Statistics Department, University of Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda.
Emmanuel BiracyazaPrison Fellowship Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda.
Sanctus MusafiriClinical Department of Internal Medicine, University of Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda.
Willy Gasafari MpabukaTransparency International Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExtensive research on infant mortality (IM) exists in developing countries; however, most of the methods applied thus far relied on conventional regression analyses with limited prediction capability. Advanced of Machine Learning (AML) methods provide accurate prediction of IM; however, there is no study conducted using ML methods in Rwanda. This study, therefore, applied Machine Learning Methods for predicting infant mortality in Rwanda. 

methodsA cross-sectional study design was conducted using the 2014-15 Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey. Python software version 3.8 was employed to test and apply ML methods through Random Forest (RF), Decision Tree, Support Vector Machine and Logistic regression. STATA version 13 was used for analysing conventional methods. Evaluation metrics methods specifically confusion matrix, accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristics (AUROC) were used to evaluate the performance of predictive models.

resultsAbility of prediction was between 68.6% and 61.5% for AML. We preferred with the RF model (61.5%) presenting the best performance. The RF model was the best predictive model of IM with accuracy (84.3%), recall (91.3%), precision (80.3%), F1 score (85.5%), and AUROC (84.2%); followed by decision tree model with model accuracy (83%), recall (91%), precision (79%), F1 score (84.67%) and AUROC(82.9%), followed by support vector machine with model accuracy (68.6%), recall (74.9%), precision(67%), F1 score (70.73%) and AUROC (68.6%) and last was a logistic regression with the low accuracy of prediction (61.5%), recall (61.1%), precision (62.2%), F1 score (61.6%) and AUROC (61.5%) compared to other predictive models. Our predictive models showed that marital status, children ever born, birth order and wealth index are the 4 top predictors of IM.

conclusionsIn developing a predictive model, ML methods are used to classify certain hidden information that could not be detected by traditional statistical methods. Random Forest was classified as the best classifier to be used for the predictive models of IM.

Indexed as

Epidemiological MonitoringInfant MortalityCross-Sectional StudiesDemographyFemaleHealth SurveysHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMachine LearningMarital StatusPregnancyRwandaInfant mortalityLogistic regressionMachine LearningModel accuracy

Identifiers

PMID35509018
PMCPMC9066935

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.