ArticlePediatric research2025
Comparing machine learning techniques for neonatal mortality prediction: insights from a modeling competition.
Article in Pediatric research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPredicting mortality risk in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) is challenging due to complex, variable clinical and physiological data. Machine learning (ML) offers potential for more accurate risk stratification.
objectiveTo compare the performance of various ML models in predicting NICU mortality using a team-based modeling competition.
methodsWe conducted a modeling competition with five neonatologist-led teams applying ML techniques-logistic regression, CatBoost, neural networks, random forest, and XGBoost-to a shared dataset from over 6,000 NICU admissions. The dataset included static demographic and clinical variables, alongside daily samples of heart rate and oxygen saturation. Each team developed models to predict mortality risk at baseline and within 7 days. Models were evaluated using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC). Results were presented at a national meeting, where an audience poll ranked models before AUC results were revealed.
resultsThe audience favored the most complex model (CNN) for real-world application, though logistic regression achieved the highest AUC on test data. Teams employed varied feature selection, tuning, and evaluation strategies.
conclusionsLogistic regression outperformed more complex models, highlighting the importance of selecting modeling methods based on data characteristics, interpretability, and expertise rather than model complexity alone. IMPACT: By demonstrating that model complexity does not necessarily equate to better predictive performance, this research encourages the careful selection of modeling approaches.
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.