ArticleBMC pediatrics2025
Prediction models for stunting at 2-years-old from Indonesian newborn population.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStunting in children is a health problem, especially in developing countries, such as Indonesia. The lack of information-based early preventive measures resulted in an insignificant reduction in stunting. This study aimed to develop a prediction model for stunting at 2-years old in an Indonesian newborn population.
methodVarious machine learning algorithms as the core of artificial intelligence technology, under the Cross-Industry Standard Process for Data Mining (CRISP-DM) conceptual framework, were used to build a prediction model using data of 5093 children with 23 predictor variables from the Indonesian Family Life Survey (IFLS) open database. Model prediction performance was evaluated using F1 scores, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and accuracy. Confusion matrices were used to calculate the positive and negative predictive values and evaluate the implications of the final prediction model in public health and clinical practice. Explanatory-risk factor model was developed using multivariable logistic regression.
resultThe best model to predict stunting statistically, which contains the six best predictor variables, is k-nearest neighbor (kNN) with an F1 value of 84.5%, compared to random forest, neural network, decision tree, and naïve Bayes with F1 values of 80.5%, 71.2%, 68.7%, and 65.8%, respectively. The positive and negative predicted values for the final model were 80.4% (78.5-82.3% 95% CI) and 86.8% (85.7-87.9% 95% CI), respectively. Factors associated with stunting are birth weight (AOR = 0.79,p-value < 0.01), large infant size (AOR = 0.24,p-value < 0.05), mothers age (AOR = 0.98, p-value < 0.01), mothers height (AOR = 0.91, p-value < 0.01), fathers height (AOR = 0.95, p-value < 0.01), mothers lower education level(AOR = 1.50, p-value < 0.05), birth at health facilities (AOR = 0.83, p-value < 0.05), toilet standard(AOR = 0.86,p-value < 0.05), and waste disposal standard (AOR = 0.79 ,p-value < 0.01).
conclusionsA machine learning-based stunting prediction model effectively identifies a high-risk newborn population and enables early targeted interventions. Integration of the prediction with a prescriptive approach that considers causal pathways and evidence-based interventions is required for precise and sustainable prevention of stunting.
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.