ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Prediction of Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in Very Preterm Infants: Comparing Machine Learning Methods to Logistic Regression.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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.
- Neurodevelopmental Outcome in Very Low Birth Weight Preterm Infants: An Exploratory Multivariable Analysis Including Sonographic Brain Volume Trajectories-Data from the NeoNEVS Project.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Developing and Validating a Machine Learning Model to Predict Brain Injury in Preterm Infants Using Multisource Data from the Early Postnatal Period.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
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
Abstract
purposeIs machine learning (ML) superior to the traditionally used logistic regression (LR) in prediction of neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants?
objectivesTo develop and internally validate a ML model to predict neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI) in very preterm infants (<31 weeks) at 36 months corrected age, using clinical predictors.
methodsA retrospective cohort of very preterm infants (23
resultsOf 811 eligible infants, 663 were included (mean gestational age 28 weeks, mean birth weight 1137 g and 52% male). Of those, 195 (29%) developed NDI and 468 (71%) did not. On internal validation using the testing dataset, all four models provided good discrimination of NDI with comparable AUC. RF was superior to the other three methods with a higher AUC (0.79 vs. 0.74, 0.74, and 0.73 for XGB, EN and LR, respectively), but all models have overlapped CIs.
conclusionsIn this population-based cohort of very preterm infants, RF was superior to conventional LR in prediction of NDI at 3 years corrected age. Accurate prediction of preterm infants at risk of NDI enables early referrals for intervention programs and resources allocation toward those who are most likely to benefit.
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.