ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Interpretable prediction of neonatal mortality and its key predictors using machine learning and SHAP analysis.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNeonatal mortality is still a global public health concern, especially in lower- and middle-income countries like Ethiopia. Machine learning (ML) has shown excellent performance in healthcare prediction tasks due to its capability of efficiently handling interactions within mixed-type tabular data. Therefore, this study aimed to develop an interpretable model that can predict neonatal death based on the Ethiopian Demographic Health Survey (EDHS) dataset.
methodsThis study utilized the imbalanced EDHS dataset collected from all surveys conducted in 2000, 2005, 2011, 2016, and 2019. We evaluated some basic and tree-based ensemble ML algorithms validated with five-fold cross-validation and 80/20 data splitting. Unbalanced, weighted, and SMOTENC class balancing techniques are utilized across both evaluation strategies. The models were compared based on sensitivity and SHAP interpretability with consideration of F1-score and AUC-PR trade-offs.
resultsThe weighted LightGBM model achieved the highest recall performance (recall = 87.2%) with a slight reduction of F1 = 85.3% and PR-AUC = 92.6% by preserving SHAP interpretability. The SHAP analyses indicate that breastfeeding initiation, number of living children, and ANC visits are the top three key predictors. The dependence plot shows positive SHAP values for delayed breastfeeding initiation, no living children, no antenatal care, lower household member size, grand multiparity, male sex, small birth size, twin births, and short preceding birth intervals.
conclusionThe weighted LightGBM model not only had better sensitivity with competitive AUC-PR results but also showed reliable interpretability using SHAP analyses. The model predicted strong neonatal mortality odds associated with delayed breastfeeding initiation, absence of living children, and lack of antenatal care visits. The model also predicted that neonatal mortality would be more likely for low household member size, grand multiparity, male sex, small birth size, twin births, and short preceding birth intervals. Finally, adequate ANC visits and early initiation of breastfeeding were protective and affected survival outcomes for neonates, emphasizing the importance of maternal and newborn healthcare programs.
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.