Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37056944›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2023

Gestational age assessed by optical skin reflection in low-birth-weight newborns: Applications in classification at birth.

Gabriela Luiza Nogueira Vitral, Roberta Maia de Castro Romanelli, Zilma Silveira Nogueira Reis, Rodney Nascimento Guimarães, Ivana Dias, Nilza Mussagy, Sergio Taunde, Gabriela Silveira Neves, Carolina Nogueira de São José, Alexandre Negrão Pantaleão and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Gabriela Luiza Nogueira VitralFaculty of Medicine, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Roberta Maia de Castro RomanelliFaculty of Medicine, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Zilma Silveira Nogueira ReisFaculty of Medicine, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Rodney Nascimento GuimarãesFaculty of Medicine, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Ivana DiasHospital Central de Maputo, Maputo, Mozabique.
Nilza MussagyHospital Central de Maputo, Maputo, Mozabique.
Sergio TaundeHospital Central de Maputo, Maputo, Mozabique.
Gabriela Silveira NevesFaculty of Medicine, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Carolina Nogueira de São JoséFaculdade Ciências Médicas de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Alexandre Negrão PantaleãoFaculty of Medicine, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Gisele Lobo PappaComputer Science Department, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Juliano de Souza GasparFaculty of Medicine, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Regina Amélia Pessoa Lopes de AguiarFaculty of Medicine, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais · BRMaputo Central Hospital · MZFaculdade de Ciências Médicas de Minas Gerais · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: A new medical device was previously developed to estimate gestational age (GA) at birth by processing a machine learning algorithm on the light scatter signal acquired on the newborn's skin. The study aims to validate GA calculated by the new device (test), comparing the result with the best available GA in newborns with low birth weight (LBW). Methods: We conducted a multicenter, non-randomized, and single-blinded clinical trial in three urban referral centers for perinatal care in Brazil and Mozambique. LBW newborns with a GA over 24 weeks and weighing between 500 and 2,500 g were recruited in the first 24 h of life. All pregnancies had a GA calculated by obstetric ultrasound before 24 weeks or by reliable last menstrual period (LMP). The primary endpoint was the agreement between the GA calculated by the new device (test) and the best available clinical GA, with 95% confidence limits. In addition, we assessed the accuracy of using the test in the classification of preterm and SGA. Prematurity was childbirth before 37 gestational weeks. The growth standard curve was Intergrowth-21st, with the 10th percentile being the limit for classifying SGA. Results: Among 305 evaluated newborns, 234 (76.7%) were premature, and 139 (45.6%) were SGA. The intraclass correlation coefficient between GA by the test and reference GA was 0.829 (95% CI: 0.785-0.863). However, the new device (test) underestimated the reference GA by an average of 2.8 days (95% limits of agreement: -40.6 to 31.2 days). Its use in classifying preterm or term newborns revealed an accuracy of 78.4% (95% CI: 73.3-81.6), with high sensitivity (96.2%; 95% CI: 92.8-98.2). The accuracy of classifying SGA newborns using GA calculated by the test was 62.3% (95% CI: 56.6-67.8). Discussion: The new device (test) was able to assess GA at birth in LBW newborns, with a high agreement with the best available GA as a reference. The GA estimated by the device (test), when used to classify newborns on the first day of life, was useful in identifying premature infants but not when applied to identify SGA infants, considering current algohrithm. Nonetheless, the new device (test) has the potential to provide important information in places where the GA is unknown or inaccurate.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceclinical trialinfantlow birth weightpremature (babies)prenatalsmall for gestational age (SGA)ultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID37056944
PMCPMC10086374
OpenAlexW4361204198

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.