Machine learning for understanding and predicting neurodevelopmental outcomes in premature infants: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Machine learning has been attracting increasing attention for use in healthcare applications, including neonatal medicine. One application for this tool is in understanding and predicting neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants. In this study, we have carried out a systematic review to identify findings and challenges to date. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Four databases were searched in February 2022, with articles then screened in a non-blinded manner by two authors. RESULTS: The literature search returned 278 studies, with 11 meeting the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Convolutional neural networks were the most common machine learning approach, with most studies seeking to predict neurodevelopmental outcomes from images and connectomes describing brain structure and function. Studies to date also sought to identify features predictive of outcomes; however, results varied greatly. CONCLUSIONS: Initial studies in this field have achieved promising results; however, many machine learning techniques remain to be explored, and the consensus is yet to be reached on which clinical and brain features are most predictive of neurodevelopmental outcomes. IMPACT: This systematic review looks at the question of whether machine learning can be used to predict and understand neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants. Our review finds that promising initial works have been conducted in this field, but many challenges and opportunities remain. Quality assessment of relevant articles is conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. This work identifies challenges that remain and suggests several key directions for future research. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first systematic review to explore this topic.
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 | 0.012 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".