ArticlePLOS global public health2022
Real world external validation of metabolic gestational age assessment in Kenya.
Article in PLOS global public health, 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.
- Maternal lipidomic signatures of preterm and small-for-gestational-age newborn infants in low- and middle-income countries.Science advances · 2025Article
- Post-natal gestational age assessment using targeted metabolites of neonatal heel prick and umbilical cord blood: A GARBH-Ini cohort study from North India.Journal of global health · 2024Article
- Accuracy of prenatal and postnatal biomarkers for estimating gestational age: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Using data from Ontario Canada, we previously developed machine learning-based algorithms incorporating newborn screening metabolites to estimate gestational age (GA). The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of these algorithms in a population of infants born in Siaya county, Kenya. Cord and heel prick samples were collected from newborns in Kenya and metabolic analysis was carried out by Newborn Screening Ontario in Ottawa, Canada. Postnatal GA estimation models were developed with data from Ontario with multivariable linear regression using ELASTIC NET regularization. Model performance was evaluated by applying the models to the data collected from Kenya and comparing model-derived estimates of GA to reference estimates from early pregnancy ultrasound. Heel prick samples were collected from 1,039 newborns from Kenya. Of these, 8.9% were born preterm and 8.5% were small for GA. Cord blood samples were also collected from 1,012 newborns. In data from heel prick samples, our best-performing model estimated GA within 9.5 days overall of reference GA [mean absolute error (MAE) 1.35 (95% CI 1.27, 1.43)]. In preterm infants and those small for GA, MAE was 2.62 (2.28, 2.99) and 1.81 (1.57, 2.07) weeks, respectively. In data from cord blood, model accuracy slightly decreased overall (MAE 1.44 (95% CI 1.36, 1.53)). Accuracy was not impacted by maternal HIV status and improved when the dating ultrasound occurred between 9 and 13 weeks of gestation, in both heel prick and cord blood data (overall MAE 1.04 (95% CI 0.87, 1.22) and 1.08 (95% CI 0.90, 1.27), respectively). The accuracy of metabolic model based GA estimates in the Kenya cohort was lower compared to our previously published validation studies, however inconsistency in the timing of reference dating ultrasounds appears to have been a contributing factor to diminished model performance.
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.