ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026
Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Culture-Confirmed Neonatal Sepsis in a Tertiary Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Neonatal sepsis remains a major cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Early diagnosis is challenging because of nonspecific clinical manifestations and delays in laboratory confirmation. Machine learning (ML) approaches using structured electronic health record (EHR) data may improve early risk stratification in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Objective: This study aimed to evaluate ML models for predicting culture-confirmed neonatal sepsis among neonates admitted to a tertiary NICU in Jordan, with the objective of addressing diagnostic gaps in resource-limited settings. Specifically, we aimed to identify key predictors through feature importance analysis, evaluate model performance with class-imbalanced data, and propose strategies to improve interpretability and generalizability in LMICs. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using structured EHRs of 3274 neonates admitted to a tertiary NICU in Jordan between 2018 and 2024. Neonates who underwent blood culture testing were included. The dataset was divided into training (n=2619, 80%) and testing (n=655, 20%) subsets using stratified sampling. Three ML models-Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), decision trees, and neural networks-were trained using clinical, laboratory, and demographic variables. Class imbalance was addressed using the synthetic minority oversampling technique (SMOTE) applied to the training dataset. Model performance was evaluated using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: Among 3274 neonates included in the study, the XGBoost model demonstrated the best predictive performance on the independent test set (n=655, 20%), achieving an accuracy of 94% (616/655 correct predictions, 95% CI 92% to 96%), sensitivity of 98% (95/97 sepsis cases correctly identified, 95% CI 96% to 99%), and an AUC of 0.98 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.99). Decision trees provided interpretable classification rules with moderate performance, whereas neural networks showed lower discriminative ability, with an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.84). Important predictive features included C-reactive protein, platelet count, and gestational age. Conclusions: XGBoost demonstrated strong predictive performance in this retrospective cohort, supporting its potential as a foundation for future prospective clinical decision support tools. External validation and prospective studies are required before clinical implementation.
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.