Machine Learning Used to Compare the Diagnostic Accuracy of Risk Factors, Clinical Signs and Biomarkers and to Develop a New Prediction Model for Neonatal Early-onset Sepsis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current strategies for risk stratification and prediction of neonatal early-onset sepsis (EOS) are inefficient and lack diagnostic performance. The aim of this study was to use machine learning to analyze the diagnostic accuracy of risk factors (RFs), clinical signs and biomarkers and to develop a prediction model for culture-proven EOS. We hypothesized that the contribution to diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers is higher than of RFs or clinical signs. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the prospective international multicenter NeoPInS study. Neonates born after completed 34 weeks of gestation with antibiotic therapy due to suspected EOS within the first 72 hours of life participated. Primary outcome was defined as predictive performance for culture-proven EOS with variables known at the start of antibiotic therapy. Machine learning was used in form of a random forest classifier. RESULTS: One thousand six hundred eighty-five neonates treated for suspected infection were analyzed. Biomarkers were superior to clinical signs and RFs for prediction of culture-proven EOS. C-reactive protein and white blood cells were most important for the prediction of the culture result. Our full model achieved an area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic-curve of 83.41% (±8.8%) and an area-under-the-precision-recall-curve of 28.42% (±11.5%). The predictive performance of the model with RFs alone was comparable with random. CONCLUSIONS: Biomarkers have to be considered in algorithms for the management of neonates suspected of EOS. A 2-step approach with a screening tool for all neonates in combination with our model in the preselected population with an increased risk for EOS may have the potential to reduce the start of unnecessary antibiotics.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".