Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40506584›Full record

ArticlePediatric research2026

Early prediction of bronchopulmonary dysplasia: comparison of modelling methods, development and validation studies.

Heloise Torchin, Paula Dhiman, Pierre-Yves Ancel, Xavier Durrmeyer, Pierre-Henri Jarreau, Alexandra Nuytten, Patrick Truffert, Jennifer Zeitlin, Gary S Collins

Abstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Artificial intelligence and digital technologies transforming neonatal respiratory assessment: a scoping review.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

9 authors.

Heloise TorchinUniversité Paris Cité, Epidemiology and Statistics Research Center/CRESS, INSERM, INRAE, Paris, France. heloise.torchin@inserm.fr.
Paula DhimanNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Pierre-Yves AncelUniversité Paris Cité, Epidemiology and Statistics Research Center/CRESS, INSERM, INRAE, Paris, France.
Xavier DurrmeyerUniversité Paris Cité, Epidemiology and Statistics Research Center/CRESS, INSERM, INRAE, Paris, France.
Pierre-Henri JarreauUniversité Paris Cité, Epidemiology and Statistics Research Center/CRESS, INSERM, INRAE, Paris, France.
Alexandra NuyttenDepartment of Neonatology, Saint Vincent de Paul Hospital, Lille, France.
Patrick TruffertDepartment of Neonatology, Jeanne de Flandres Hospital, Lille, France.
Jennifer ZeitlinUniversité Paris Cité, Epidemiology and Statistics Research Center/CRESS, INSERM, INRAE, Paris, France.
Gary S CollinsNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine-learning methods are gaining in popularity to predict medical events but their added value to other methods is still to be determined. We compared performances of clinical prediction models for bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) or death in very preterm infants using logistic regression and random forests methods.

methodsTwo population-based cohorts of very preterm infants were used: EPIPAGE-2 (France, 2011) for development and internal validation and EPICE (Europe, 2011) for external validation. Eligible infants were born before 30 weeks' gestation and admitted in neonatal units. BPD was defined as any respiratory support at 36 weeks postmenstrual age. Candidate predictors were available shortly after birth or at day 3. Logistic regression and random forest models performance was assessed in terms of discrimination (c-statistic) and calibration plots.

resultsPrevalence of BPD/death was 32.1% (668/1923) in EPIPAGE-2 and 41.0% (1368/3335) in EPICE. At both time points, logistic regression and random forest models showed similar performance during internal validation. At birth, external validation in EPICE showed good discrimination (logistic regression model: c-statistics 0.81, 95% CI 0.80-0.83; random forest: 0.80, 95% CI 0.79-0.81) but both models underestimated the probability of BPD/death. Model performances were heterogeneous throughout European regions.

conclusionsBoth modelling methods performed similarly to predict BPD/death shortly after birth in very preterm children. IMPACT: Whether machine-learning methods predict better short-term respiratory outcomes in very preterm infants than logistic regression models is debated. Random forest-based prediction models did not perform better than logistic regression to predict bronchopulmonary dysplasia or death shortly after birth in very preterm infants. Calibration performances varied among European countries. While offering the same performance, regression models are easier to understand, to disseminate and to apply to different populations.

Indexed as

Bronchopulmonary DysplasiaEuropeFemaleFranceGestational AgeHumansInfantInfant, Extremely PrematureInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureLogistic ModelsMachine LearningMalePredictive Value of TestsPrevalenceReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.