ArticlePloS one2023
Development and external validation of machine learning algorithms for postnatal gestational age estimation using clinical data and metabolomic markers.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gestational Age Maturity: Have Our Assessment Tools Truly Matured and Come of Age?Indian pediatrics · 2025Article
- Association between gestational weight gain and adverse pregnancy outcomes: cohort analysis from South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Current Status of Newborn Bloodspot Screening Worldwide 2024: A Comprehensive Review of Recent Activities (2020-2023).International journal of neonatal screening · 2024Review
- Accuracy of prenatal and postnatal biomarkers for estimating gestational age: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Predicting Mortality in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in Zambia: An Application of Machine Learning.Global health, epidemiology and genomics · 2023Article
- Validation of gestational age determination from ultrasound or a metabolic gestational age algorithm using exact date of conception in a cohort of newborns conceived using assisted reproduction technologies.AJOG global reports · 2022Article
- Unlocking the global health potential of dried blood spot cards.Journal of global health · 2022Article
- Real world external validation of metabolic gestational age assessment in Kenya.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- Metabolic gestational age assessment in low resource settings: a validation protocol.Gates open research · 2020Article
- A novel way of determining gestational age upon the birth of a child.Journal of global healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate estimates of gestational age (GA) at birth are important for preterm birth surveillance but can be challenging to obtain in low income countries. Our objective was to develop machine learning models to accurately estimate GA shortly after birth using clinical and metabolomic data.
methodsWe derived three GA estimation models using ELASTIC NET multivariable linear regression using metabolomic markers from heel-prick blood samples and clinical data from a retrospective cohort of newborns from Ontario, Canada. We conducted internal model validation in an independent cohort of Ontario newborns, and external validation in heel prick and cord blood sample data collected from newborns from prospective birth cohorts in Lusaka, Zambia and Matlab, Bangladesh. Model performance was measured by comparing model-derived estimates of GA to reference estimates from early pregnancy ultrasound.
resultsSamples were collected from 311 newborns from Zambia and 1176 from Bangladesh. The best-performing model accurately estimated GA within about 6 days of ultrasound estimates in both cohorts when applied to heel prick data (MAE 0.79 weeks (95% CI 0.69, 0.90) for Zambia; 0.81 weeks (0.75, 0.86) for Bangladesh), and within about 7 days when applied to cord blood data (1.02 weeks (0.90, 1.15) for Zambia; 0.95 weeks (0.90, 0.99) for Bangladesh).
conclusionsAlgorithms developed in Canada provided accurate estimates of GA when applied to external cohorts from Zambia and Bangladesh. Model performance was superior in heel prick data as compared to cord blood data.
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.