ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Developing and validating an explainable digital mortality prediction tool for extremely preterm infants.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decision-making in perinatal management of extremely preterm infants is challenging. Mortality prediction tools may support decision-making. We used population-based routinely entered electronic patient record data from 25,902 infants born between 23+0-27+6 weeks' gestation and admitted to 185 English and Welsh neonatal units from 2010-2020 to develop and internally validate an online tool to predict mortality before neonatal discharge. Comparing nine machine learning approaches, we developed an explainable tool based on stepwise backward logistic regression (https://premoutcome.shinyapps.io/Death/). The tool demonstrated good discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (95% confidence interval) of 0.746 (0.729-0.762)) and calibration with superior net benefit across probability thresholds of 10%-70%. Our tool also demonstrated superior calibration and utility performance than previously published models. Acceptable performance was demonstrated in a multinational, external validation cohort of preterm infants. This tool may be useful to support high-risk perinatal decision-making following further evaluation.
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.