ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2025
Ultrasound combined with serological markers for predicting neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis: a machine learning approach.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-throughput analysis of multimodal monitoring data: the role of machine learning in early warning systems for high-risk neonates.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Review
- Imaging and Non-Imaging Approaches for the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Necrotizing Enterocolitis-What Lies Ahead?Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & aims: Neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. Current diagnostic methods, relying on clinical signs and radiography, often lack sensitivity for early detection. This study aimed to develop and validate a machine learning (ML) model integrating ultrasound and serological markers to improve NEC prediction in neonates. Methods: This retrospective, case-control study included 191 neonates (cases with Bell's stage ≥ II NEC and matched controls) admitted to a tertiary NICU. Data were extracted from electronic medical records, including demographics, clinical variables, ultrasound findings (bowel wall thickness, edema, gas location, peristalsis, seroperitoneum), and serological markers (WBC, neutrophil count, CRP, ALP, albumin, procalcitonin, platelet count, INR, hemoglobin). Twelve ML algorithms were evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation on a training set (70%). The optimal model was selected based on AUC-ROC and further optimized via hyperparameter tuning. Model performance was assessed on an independent validation set (30%). Explainable AI (XAI) using SHAP values was employed to identify key predictive features. Results: XGBoost demonstrated the highest performance (AUC = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.92-0.99) during cross-validation. The optimized XGBoost fusion model-Ultrasound combined Serological Predict NEC (USPN) achieved an AUC of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.76-0.99) in the validation set, with a sensitivity of 0.73 and specificity of 1.00. The USPN model outperformed models based solely on ultrasound (AUC = 0.73) or serological markers (AUC = 0.79). SHAP analysis identified bowel peristalsis, C-reactive protein, albumin, bowel thickness, and procalcitonin as the most influential predictors. Decision curve analysis demonstrated a positive relative net benefit of the USPN model compared to the US and serological models in the validation set. Conclusion: A machine learning model integrating ultrasound and serological markers significantly improves the prediction of NEC in neonates compared to single-modality approaches. This multimodal approach has the potential to facilitate earlier diagnosis and intervention, potentially improving outcomes in this high-risk population.
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.