Development of a prediction model for infant hospitalization and death using clinical features assessed by community health workers during routine postnatal home visits in Dhaka, Bangladesh
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT Introduction To improve upon the World Health Organization (WHO) 8 danger signs used to identify young infants (<2 months) requiring referral during community health worker (CHW) home visits, aggregative features (e.g., cumulative visits with fever) rather than visit-specific features (e.g., fever at a single visit), and a machine learning random forest model, may enhance predictive performance. Applying these approaches, we aimed to develop a prediction model for infant hospitalization and/or death using CHW-assessed clinical features during home visits in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Methods We analyzed data from generally healthy infants prospectively enrolled at birth and assessed at 11 scheduled CHW visits from 3-60 days of age. To predict first hospitalization or death, we developed two models – time-varying Cox regression and random forest – using the same set of candidate predictors (45 clinical features of which 8 were WHO danger signs, and 12 additional covariates) with aggregative features incorporated. We evaluated discrimination (C-statistic) and calibration (calibration plots). Performance was compared to a time-varying Cox model using only WHO danger signs. Results Among 1906 infants, 176 (9.2%) had an event (173 hospitalizations, 3 deaths). The best-performing Cox model (C-statistic=0.71; 95% CI 0.68-0.75) consisting of three baseline covariates (any perinatal/delivery complication, umbilical cord care, gestational age) and four visit-specific clinical features (nasal congestion, cough, jaundice, skin rash), and a Cox model with these four features plus WHO danger signs (C-statistic=0.70; 95% CI 0.67-0.74), demonstrated higher discrimination than WHO danger signs alone (C-statistic=0.56; 95% CI 0.54-0.60), with similar calibration. A random forest model (42 predictors) was well-calibrated with comparable discrimination (C-statistic=0.69; 95% CI 0.64-0.73). Conclusion Aggregative features and random forest did not outperform a time-varying Cox model using baseline covariates and visit-specific features. Adding four features to WHO danger signs may improve predictive performance by capturing a broader spectrum of infant illnesses requiring hospitalization. What is already known on this topic During community health worker (CHW) home visit assessments of young infants (<2 months), use of World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended danger signs to predict hospitalization and/or death may have limited sensitivity and may miss cases of severe illness requiring referral. Summarizing repeated assessments of clinical features during sequential home visits as aggregative predictors (e.g., cumulative visits with fever) rather than visit-specific predictors (e.g., fever at a single visit), and machine learning models such as random forest, have not been previously evaluated for prediction of infant hospitalization and/or death and may improve predictive performance compared to WHO danger signs. What this study adds Random forest, and use of aggregative predictors in both a random forest model and a time-varying Cox model, did not improve prediction of infant hospitalization and/or death during CHW routine home visits compared to a time-varying Cox model consisting of baseline covariates and visit-specific clinical features. Adding four visit-specific clinical features to the WHO danger signs improved prediction of hospitalization and/or death during CHW routine home visit assessments of young infants born generally healthy in an urban setting. How this study might affect research, practice or policy The findings support future research evaluating whether adding visit-specific clinical features to the WHO danger signs algorithm can improve identification of infants needing referral across diverse settings and with varying baseline risks.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».