Postnatal gestational age estimation using newborn screening blood spots: a proposed validation protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knowledge of gestational age (GA) is critical for guiding neonatal care and quantifying regional burdens of preterm birth. In settings where access to ultrasound dating is limited, postnatal estimates are frequently used despite the issues of accuracy associated with postnatal approaches. Newborn metabolic profiles are known to vary by severity of preterm birth. Recent work by our group and others has highlighted the accuracy of postnatal GA estimation algorithms derived from routinely collected newborn screening profiles. This protocol outlines the validation of a GA model originally developed in a North American cohort among international newborn cohorts. METHODS: Our primary objective is to use blood spot samples collected from infants born in Zambia and Bangladesh to evaluate our algorithm's capacity to correctly classify GA within 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks. Secondary objectives are to 1) determine the algorithm's accuracy in small-for-gestational-age and large-for-gestational-age infants, 2) determine its ability to correctly discriminate GA of newborns across dichotomous thresholds of preterm birth (≤34 weeks, <37 weeks GA) and 3) compare the relative performance of algorithms derived from newborn screening panels including all available analytes and those restricted to analyte subsets. The study population will consist of infants born to mothers already enrolled in one of two preterm birth cohorts in Lusaka, Zambia, and Matlab, Bangladesh. Dried blood spot samples will be collected and sent for analysis in Ontario, Canada, for model validation. DISCUSSION: This study will determine the validity of a GA estimation algorithm across ethnically diverse infant populations and assess population specific variations in newborn metabolic profiles.
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 | 0.102 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".