Predicting High-Risk Preterm Birth Using Artificial Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A reengineered approach to the early prediction of preterm birth is presented as a complimentary technique to the current procedure of using costly and invasive clinical testing on high-risk maternal populations. Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are employed as a screening tool for preterm birth on a heterogeneous maternal population; risk estimations use obstetrical variables available to physicians before 23 weeks gestation. The objective was to assess if ANNs have a potential use in obstetrical outcome estimations in low-risk maternal populations. The back-propagation feedforward ANN was trained and tested on cases with eight input variables describing the patient's obstetrical history; the output variables were: 1) preterm birth; 2) high-risk preterm birth; and 3) a refined high-risk preterm birth outcome excluding all cases where resuscitation was delivered in the form of free flow oxygen. Artificial training sets were created to increase the distribution of the underrepresented class to 20%. Training on the refined high-risk preterm birth model increased the network's sensitivity to 54.8%, compared to just over 20% for the nonartificially distributed preterm birth model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".