Prediction of Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in Very Preterm Infants: Comparing Machine Learning Methods to Logistic Regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Is machine learning (ML) superior to the traditionally used logistic regression (LR) in prediction of neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants? OBJECTIVES: To develop and internally validate a ML model to predict neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI) in very preterm infants (<31 weeks) at 36 months corrected age, using clinical predictors. METHODS: weeks) born between January 2004 and December 2016 in Nova Scotia, Canada. Survivors with neurodevelopmental assessment at 36 months corrected age were included. The study sample was randomly split (80:20) into a development and testing datasets. We compared four methods: LR, elastic net (EN), random forest ensemble (RF) and gradient boosting (XGB), in relation to discrimination (AUC), calibration, and diagnostic properties. RESULTS: Of 811 eligible infants, 663 were included (mean gestational age 28 weeks, mean birth weight 1137 g and 52% male). Of those, 195 (29%) developed NDI and 468 (71%) did not. On internal validation using the testing dataset, all four models provided good discrimination of NDI with comparable AUC. RF was superior to the other three methods with a higher AUC (0.79 vs. 0.74, 0.74, and 0.73 for XGB, EN and LR, respectively), but all models have overlapped CIs. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based cohort of very preterm infants, RF was superior to conventional LR in prediction of NDI at 3 years corrected age. Accurate prediction of preterm infants at risk of NDI enables early referrals for intervention programs and resources allocation toward those who are most likely to benefit.
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 | 0.026 |
| 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".