Association between newborn screening analyte profiles and infant mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess whether newborn screening analytes could be utilized beyond their traditional application to identify infants at high risk of mortality within the first 6 months of life.Methods: We linked a province-wide newborn screening registry with health administrative databases to identify infant deaths within 6 months in a source population of live-born infants between 2010 and 2014. We used a nested case-control study design, in which all infant deaths between 7 days and 6 months of age were included as cases, and a random sample of infants from the source population were selected as controls and were matched to cases at a ratio of 10:1. We examined the association between mortality and screening analytes (acylcarnitines, amino acids, fetal-to-adult hemoglobin ratio, endocrine markers, and enzymes) using lasso regression to fit multivariable models.Results: Among 350 infant deaths between 7 days and 6 months of age, and 3498 matched controls with complete data, our multivariable model demonstrated only modest ability to identify infant deaths (optimism-corrected c-statistic: 0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.50–0.71).Conclusion: We did not find newborn screening analytes to be strongly predictive of infant mortality between 7 days and 6 months of age in the general population of newborns. Future studies should investigate whether predictive modeling within more homogeneous cause-of-death categories could lead to improved predictive ability for infant mortality.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".