ArticleScientific reports2026
Ensemble learning for predicting birth trauma using high-dimensional data in the neonatal intensive care unit.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Birth trauma remains a significant global health challenge and contributes substantially to neonatal morbidity and mortality. Although machine learning (ML) approaches have shown promise in predicting birth trauma, persistent limitations related to class imbalance, model interpretability, and incomplete characterization of risk hinder their clinical utility. This study aimed to develop and evaluate an ensemble ML framework capable of leveraging high-dimensional clinical data to capture both established and latent risk factors while maintaining transparency for clinical interpretation. We implemented a Super Learner ensemble integrating multiple base learners, class-balancing strategies, and SHAP-based explainability. On an independent test set, the ensemble correctly classified 102 true negatives and 12 true positives, with 25 false negatives and 2 false positives, yielding an overall accuracy of 80.9% (95% CI: 73.4%-87.0%). Model performance exceeded the no-information rate (p = 0.031) and demonstrated fair agreement beyond chance (Cohen's κ = 0.38). Diagnostic performance was characterized by high specificity (98.1%) and positive predictive value (85.7%), but limited sensitivity (32.4%), resulting in a balanced accuracy of 65.3%. These findings highlight the inherent trade-off between sensitivity and specificity in imbalanced neonatal datasets while underscoring the potential of ensemble ML methods to support early identification of neonates at elevated risk for birth trauma. Integrating robust data science methodologies with clinical domain expertise provides a pathway toward more accurate, interpretable, and actionable decision-support tools in neonatal care.
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.