Respiratory distress syndrome prediction at birth by optical skin maturity assessment and machine learning models for limited-resource settings: a development and validation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A handheld optical device was developed to evaluate a newborn's skin maturity by assessing the photobiological properties of the tissue and processing it with other variables to predict early neonatal prognosis related to prematurity. This study assessed the device's ability to predict respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Methods: To assess the device's utility we enrolled newborns at childbirth in six urban perinatal centers from two multicenter single-blinded clinical trials. All newborns had inpatient follow-up until 72 h of life. We trained supervised machine learning models with data from 780 newborns in a Brazilian trial and provided external validation with data from 305 low-birth-weight newborns from another trial that assessed Brazilian and Mozambican newborns. The index test measured skin optical reflection with an optical sensor and adjusted acquired values with clinical variables such as birth weight and prenatal corticoid exposition for lung maturity, maternal diabetes, and hypertensive disturbances. The performance of the models was evaluated using intrasample k-parts cross-validation and external validation in an independent sample. Results: Models adjusting three predictors (skin reflection, birth weight, and antenatal corticoid exposure) or five predictors had a similar performance, including or not maternal diabetes and hypertensive diseases. The best global accuracy was 89.7 (95% CI: 87.4 to 91.8, with a high sensitivity of 85.6% (80.2 to 90.0) and specificity of 91.3% (95% CI: 88.7 to 93.5). The test correctly discriminated RDS newborns in external validation, with 82.3% (95% CI: 77.5 to 86.4) accuracy. Our findings demonstrate a new way to assess a newborn's lung maturity, providing potential opportunities for earlier and more effective care. Trial registration: RBR-3f5bm5 (online access: http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-3f5bm5/), and RBR-33mjf (online access: https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-33rnjf/).
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".