Real world external validation of metabolic gestational age assessment in Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using data from Ontario Canada, we previously developed machine learning-based algorithms incorporating newborn screening metabolites to estimate gestational age (GA). The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of these algorithms in a population of infants born in Siaya county, Kenya. Cord and heel prick samples were collected from newborns in Kenya and metabolic analysis was carried out by Newborn Screening Ontario in Ottawa, Canada. Postnatal GA estimation models were developed with data from Ontario with multivariable linear regression using ELASTIC NET regularization. Model performance was evaluated by applying the models to the data collected from Kenya and comparing model-derived estimates of GA to reference estimates from early pregnancy ultrasound. Heel prick samples were collected from 1,039 newborns from Kenya. Of these, 8.9% were born preterm and 8.5% were small for GA. Cord blood samples were also collected from 1,012 newborns. In data from heel prick samples, our best-performing model estimated GA within 9.5 days overall of reference GA [mean absolute error (MAE) 1.35 (95% CI 1.27, 1.43)]. In preterm infants and those small for GA, MAE was 2.62 (2.28, 2.99) and 1.81 (1.57, 2.07) weeks, respectively. In data from cord blood, model accuracy slightly decreased overall (MAE 1.44 (95% CI 1.36, 1.53)). Accuracy was not impacted by maternal HIV status and improved when the dating ultrasound occurred between 9 and 13 weeks of gestation, in both heel prick and cord blood data (overall MAE 1.04 (95% CI 0.87, 1.22) and 1.08 (95% CI 0.90, 1.27), respectively). Compared to internal validation performance using Ontario data and to our previously published external validations, model performance was diminished in the Kenya cohort, suggesting that reference ultrasound timing is an important factor in model performance. Our study highlights the challenges in reliably estimating GA in low resource settings, even those with access to dating ultrasound, given that the timing of dating ultrasound is critical to develop algorithms for accurate estimation of GA based on metabolic analysis of blood obtained at birth.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".