MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2430133283 · doi:10.1542/peds.2015-3303

Validity of Newborn Clinical Assessment to Determine Gestational Age in Bangladesh

2016· article· en· W2430133283 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anne CC Lee, Luke C. Mullany, Karima Ladhani, Jamal Uddin, Dipak Kumar Mitra, Parvez Ahmed, Parul Christian, Alain Labrique, Sushil Kanta Dasgupta, R. Peter Lokken, Mohammed A. Quaiyum, Abdullah H Baqui

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of HealthEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentGrand Challenges CanadaWorld Bank GroupMassachusetts General HospitalBill and Melinda Gates FoundationUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsMedicineGestational ageAnthropometryObstetricsBirth weightCohortPregnancyPediatricsCohort studyLow birth weightInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Gestational age (GA) is frequently unknown or inaccurate in pregnancies in low-income countries. Early identification of preterm infants may help link them to potentially life-saving interventions. METHODS: We conducted a validation study in a community-based birth cohort in rural Bangladesh. GA was determined by pregnancy ultrasound (<20 weeks). Community health workers conducted home visits (<72 hours) to assess physical/neuromuscular signs and measure anthropometrics. The distribution, agreement, and diagnostic accuracy of different clinical methods of GA assessment were determined compared with early ultrasound dating. RESULTS: In the live-born cohort (n = 1066), the mean ultrasound GA was 39.1 weeks (SD 2.0) and prevalence of preterm birth (<37 weeks) was 11.4%. Among assessed newborns (n = 710), the mean ultrasound GA was 39.3 weeks (SD 1.6) (8.3% preterm) and by Ballard scoring the mean GA was 38.9 weeks (SD 1.7) (12.9% preterm). The average bias of the Ballard was -0.4 weeks; however, 95% limits of agreement were wide (-4.7 to 4.0 weeks) and the accuracy for identifying preterm infants was low (sensitivity 16%, specificity 87%). Simplified methods for GA assessment had poor diagnostic accuracy for identifying preterm births (community health worker prematurity scorecard [sensitivity/specificity: 70%/27%]; Capurro [5%/96%]; Eregie [75%/58%]; Bhagwat [18%/87%], foot length <75 mm [64%/35%]; birth weight <2500 g [54%/82%]). Neonatal anthropometrics had poor to fair performance for classifying preterm infants (areas under the receiver operating curve 0.52-0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Newborn clinical assessment of GA is challenging at the community level in low-resource settings. Anthropometrics are also inaccurate surrogate markers for GA in settings with high rates of fetal growth restriction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations67
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207