ArticleScientific reports2022
Machine learning methods to predict attrition in a population-based cohort of very preterm infants.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Survey Data on Attitudes Towards Foreign Aid & Development in France, Germany, Great Britain, and the U.S.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Modeling the determinants of attrition in a two-stage epilepsy prevalence survey in Nairobi using machine learning.Global epidemiology · 2025Article
- A Deployed Online Reinforcement Learning Algorithm In An Oral Health Clinical Trial.Proceedings of the ... AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The timely identification of cohort participants at higher risk for attrition is important to earlier interventions and efficient use of research resources. Machine learning may have advantages over the conventional approaches to improve discrimination by analysing complex interactions among predictors. We developed predictive models of attrition applying a conventional regression model and different machine learning methods. A total of 542 very preterm (< 32 gestational weeks) infants born in Portugal as part of the European Effective Perinatal Intensive Care in Europe (EPICE) cohort were included. We tested a model with a fixed number of predictors (Baseline) and a second with a dynamic number of variables added from each follow-up (Incremental). Eight classification methods were applied: AdaBoost, Artificial Neural Networks, Functional Trees, J48, J48Consolidated, K-Nearest Neighbours, Random Forest and Logistic Regression. Performance was compared using AUC- PR (Area Under the Curve-Precision Recall), Accuracy, Sensitivity and F-measure. Attrition at the four follow-ups were, respectively: 16%, 25%, 13% and 17%. Both models demonstrated good predictive performance, AUC-PR ranging between 69 and 94.1 in Baseline and from 72.5 to 97.1 in Incremental model. Of the whole set of methods, Random Forest presented the best performance at all follow-ups [AUC-PR
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.