MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3099584900 · doi:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100279

Cost-effectiveness of a gestational age metabolic algorithm for preterm and small-for-gestational-age classification

2020· article· en· W3099584900 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn Coyle, Amanda My Linh Quan, Lindsay A. Wilson, Steven Hawken, A. Brianne Bota, Doug Coyle, Jeffrey C. Murray, Kumanan Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsBruyèreUniversity of OttawaOttawa HospitalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsGestational ageObstetricsMedicineSmall for gestational ageGestationAlgorithmComputer sciencePregnancyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundPreterm birth complications are the leading cause of death among children under 5 years of age, and this imposes a heavy burden on healthcare and social systems, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where reliable estimates of gestational age may be difficult to obtain. Metabolic analyte data can aid in accurately estimating gestational age. However, important costs are associated with this approach, which are related to the collection and analysis of newborn samples, and its cost-effectiveness has yet to be determined.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an internationally validated gestational age estimation algorithm based on neonatal blood spot metabolite data in combination with clinical and demographic variables (birthweight, sex, and multiple birth status) compared with a basic algorithm that uses only clinical and demographic variables in classifying infants as preterm or term (using a 37-week dichotomous preterm or term classification) and determining gestational age.Study DesignThe cost per correctly classified preterm infant and per correctly classified small-for-gestational-age infant for the metabolic algorithm vs the basic algorithm were estimated with data from an implementation study in Bangladesh.ResultsOver 1 year, the metabolic algorithm correctly classified an average of 8.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.3–14.7) additional preterm infants and 145.3 (95% confidence interval, 128.0–164.7) additional small-for-gestational-age infants per 1323 infants screened compared with the basic algorithm using only clinical and demographic variables. The incremental annual cost of adopting the metabolic algorithm was $100,031 (95% confidence interval, $86,354–$115,725). If setup costs were included, the cost was $120,496 (95% confidence interval, $106,322–$136,656). Compared with the basic algorithm, the incremental cost per preterm infant correctly classified by the metabolic algorithm is $11,542 ($13,903 with setup), and the incremental cost per small-for-gestational-age infant is $688 ($829 with setup).ConclusionThis research quantifies the cost per detection of preterm or small-for-gestational-age infant in the implementation of a newborn screening program to aid in improved classification of preterm and, in particular, small-for-gestational-age infants in low- and middle-income countries. Preterm birth complications are the leading cause of death among children under 5 years of age, and this imposes a heavy burden on healthcare and social systems, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where reliable estimates of gestational age may be difficult to obtain. Metabolic analyte data can aid in accurately estimating gestational age. However, important costs are associated with this approach, which are related to the collection and analysis of newborn samples, and its cost-effectiveness has yet to be determined. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an internationally validated gestational age estimation algorithm based on neonatal blood spot metabolite data in combination with clinical and demographic variables (birthweight, sex, and multiple birth status) compared with a basic algorithm that uses only clinical and demographic variables in classifying infants as preterm or term (using a 37-week dichotomous preterm or term classification) and determining gestational age. The cost per correctly classified preterm infant and per correctly classified small-for-gestational-age infant for the metabolic algorithm vs the basic algorithm were estimated with data from an implementation study in Bangladesh. Over 1 year, the metabolic algorithm correctly classified an average of 8.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.3–14.7) additional preterm infants and 145.3 (95% confidence interval, 128.0–164.7) additional small-for-gestational-age infants per 1323 infants screened compared with the basic algorithm using only clinical and demographic variables. The incremental annual cost of adopting the metabolic algorithm was $100,031 (95% confidence interval, $86,354–$115,725). If setup costs were included, the cost was $120,496 (95% confidence interval, $106,322–$136,656). Compared with the basic algorithm, the incremental cost per preterm infant correctly classified by the metabolic algorithm is $11,542 ($13,903 with setup), and the incremental cost per small-for-gestational-age infant is $688 ($829 with setup). This research quantifies the cost per detection of preterm or small-for-gestational-age infant in the implementation of a newborn screening program to aid in improved classification of preterm and, in particular, small-for-gestational-age infants in low- and middle-income countries.

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)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFMSame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207