ArticleThe Lancet. Digital health2025
Development and validation of a pre-trained language model for neonatal morbidities: a retrospective, multicentre, prognostic study.
Article in The Lancet. Digital health, 2025. 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.
- Automated Extraction of Postoperative Cancer Recurrence and Metastasis From Computed Tomography (CT) Reports: Semisupervised Deep Learning Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Mapping the humanistic care ecosystem in medical education: development and validation of a novel multidimensional instrument (HCS-ME).BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Effect of fresh-frozen plasma transfusion on intraventricular hemorrhage risk in preterm infants with prolonged APTT: a target trial emulation with causal forest analysis.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly identification and monitoring of neonatal morbidities are critical for timely interventions that can prevent complications, optimise resource use, and support families. Although traditional tools based on tabular data and biomarkers are beneficial, they are restricted in assessing the risk of morbidities in newborns. In this study, we developed NeonatalBERT, a pre-trained large language model (LLM) that estimates the risk of neonatal morbidities from clinical notes.
methodsThis prognostic study investigated retrospective primary and external cohorts from two different quaternary-care academic medical centres in the USA: Stanford Health Care and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. NeonatalBERT was initially pre-trained on clinical notes from the primary cohort and then fine-tuned separately for both cohorts. NeonatalBERT was also compared against other existing LLMs, such as BioBERT and Bio-ClinicalBERT, as well as traditional machine learning and logistic regression models using tabular features. NeonatalBERT was evaluated on 19 neonatal morbidities (respiratory distress syndrome, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, pulmonary haemorrhage, pulmonary hypertension, atelectasis, aspiration syndrome, intraventricular haemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, neonatal seizures, other CNS disorders, patent ductus arteriosus, cardiovascular instability, sepsis, candidiasis, anaemia, jaundice, necrotising enterocolitis, retinopathy of prematurity, and death) for the primary cohort and ten for the external cohort (respiratory distress syndrome, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, pulmonary haemorrhage, intraventricular haemorrhage, patent ductus arteriosus, sepsis, jaundice, necrotising enterocolitis, retinopathy of prematurity, and death). For each outcome, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), and F1 scores were evaluated.
findings32 321 newborns were included in the primary cohort, including 27 411 in the primary training set (mean gestational age 38·64 weeks [SD 2·30]; 13 056 [47·6%] female and 14 355 [52·4%] male newborns) and 4910 in the primary testing set (mean gestational age 38·64 [2·13] weeks; 2336 [47·6%] female and 2574 [52·4%] male newborns). Additionally, 7061 newborns were selected into the external cohort, including 5653 in the external training set (1567 [27·7%] premature and 4086 [72·3%] term births; 2614 [46·2%] female and 3039 [53·8%] male newborns) and 1408 in the external testing set (383 [27·2%] premature and 1025 [72·8%] term births; 624 [44·3%] female and 784 [55·7%] male newborns). In the primary cohort, the mean AUPRC over 19 outcomes was 0·291 (95% CI 0·268-0·314) for NeonatalBERT, 0·238 (0·217-0·259) for Bio-ClinicalBERT, 0·217 (0·197-0·236) for BioBERT, and 0·194 (0·177-0·211) for the traditional model using tabular data. In the external cohort, NeonatalBERT had a mean AUPRC of 0·360 (0·328-0·393), outperforming other models with the range of 0·224-0·333.
interpretationBased on validation using two large-scale US datasets, NeonatalBERT effectively estimates the risk of neonatal morbidities from unstructured clinical notes of newborns. The promising results from this study show the potential of NeonatalBERT to enhance neonatal care and streamline hospital operations.
fundingNational Institutes of Health, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, March of Dimes Foundation, Alfred E Mann Foundation, Gates Foundation, Christopher Hess Research Fund, Roberts Foundation Research Fund, Prematurity Research Center, and Stanford Maternal & Child Health Research Institute Postdoctoral Support funds.
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.