Accurate prediction of gestational age using newborn screening analyte data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identification of preterm births and accurate estimates of gestational age for newborn infants is vital to guide care. Unfortunately, in developing countries, it can be challenging to obtain estimates of gestational age. Routinely collected newborn infant screening metabolic analytes vary by gestational age and may be useful to estimate gestational age. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop an algorithm that could estimate gestational age at birth that is based on the analytes that are obtained from newborn infant screening. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a population-based cross-sectional study of all live births in the province of Ontario that included 249,700 infants who were born between April 2007 and March 2009 and who underwent newborn infant screening. We used multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses to build a model to predict gestational age using newborn infant screening metabolite measurements and readily available physical characteristics data (birthweight and sex). RESULTS: The final model of our metabolic gestational dating algorithm had an average deviation between observed and expected gestational age of approximately 1 week, which suggests excellent predictive ability (adjusted R-square of 0.65; root mean square error, 1.06 weeks). Two-thirds of the gestational ages that were predicted by our model were accurate within ±1 week of the actual gestational age. Our logistic regression model was able to discriminate extremely well between term and increasingly premature categories of infants (c-statistic, >0.99). CONCLUSION: Metabolic gestational dating is accurate for the prediction of gestational age and could have value in low resource settings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".