MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4283380704 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2022.179

P.082 Using machine-based learning to predict neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) severity based on patient-specific clinical factors

2022· article· en· W4283380704 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
K Woodward, P DeJesus, K Mohammad, MJ Esser

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypoxic Ischemic EncephalopathyEncephalopathyElectroencephalographyMachine learningRandom forestSeverity of illnessPediatricsArtificial intelligenceInternal medicineComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Severity of HIE is based on Sarnat classification; however, it is difficult to predict precise neurodevelopmental outcomes as this only provides a single snapshot in time. We aimed to use machine-based learning to better understand variables contributing towards HIE severity. Methods: Patients with HIE treated with hypothermia were studied between 2014 and 2020 at level 3 NICUs in Calgary, Alberta. Clinical information contained 23 features including specifics of clinical examination, blood work, MRI and EEG findings, and medications. Random forest models were trained to examine features most predictive of HIE severity. Results: Two hundred and six patients were eligible. By grouping patients based on the initial Sarnat score and post-cooling exam, features correctly predicted groups 43% and 73% of the time, respectively. Precision, accuracy, and recall was best for the mild group. Using MRI and day 1 seizures it was 54% and 67% predictive, respectively. Features contributing most included arterial pH, initial lactate, and overall EEG findings. There are ongoing analyses for further classification. Conclusions: Machine-based learning can improve predictive models for patient outcomes. There is benefit in using variables outside of the initial examination to improve classification. We aim to expand this model to include detailed neurodevelopmental outcomes to improve prognostication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology→French-language works237,207→