ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Machine learning models for predicting neonatal bacterial infections: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bacterial infections represent a critical threat to neonatal health, accounting for approximately 25% of neonatal mortality globally. Timely and precise diagnosis in infants aged 1 to 90 days is essential to facilitate rapid intervention and prevent severe complications. This study aimed to develop and evaluate machine learning (ML) models for the early, non-invasive prediction of bacterial infections using routine clinical data, maximizing clinical interpretability for point-of-care triage. Data from 306 infants aged 1 to 90 days hospitalized between January 2014 and December 2022 at a Social Security Organization hospital in Khorasan Razavi, Iran, were retrospectively analyzed. The target variable was strictly labeled using cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) culture via lumbar puncture (LP) as the definitive gold standard (n = 158 infectious, 51.6%; n = 148 non-infectious, 48.4%). Predictors were limited to routine, non-invasive paraclinical markers extracted from the electronic health record and normalized using a QuantileTransformer pipeline. Nine ML classifiers were rigorously evaluated via a leakage-safe nested cross-validation (NCV) framework (5-folds × 2 repeats outer, threefold inner). Algorithmic behavior was decoded globally and locally using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values, and overfitting was monitored via comprehensive training-to-validation generalization audits. Top-tier models clustered within an outer-CV AUROC range of 0.74-0.76. While non-linear gradient boosting (HistGBM) achieved the highest raw discrimination (AUROC = 0.786, 95% CI: 0.757-0.812), a generalization audit revealed a severe training optimism gap (0.214). Conversely, L
Indexed as
Identifiers
42595840What 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.