Comparing machine learning techniques for neonatal mortality prediction: insights from a modeling competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Predicting mortality risk in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) is challenging due to complex, variable clinical and physiological data. Machine learning (ML) offers potential for more accurate risk stratification. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of various ML models in predicting NICU mortality using a team-based modeling competition. METHODS: We conducted a modeling competition with five neonatologist-led teams applying ML techniques-logistic regression, CatBoost, neural networks, random forest, and XGBoost-to a shared dataset from over 6,000 NICU admissions. The dataset included static demographic and clinical variables, alongside daily samples of heart rate and oxygen saturation. Each team developed models to predict mortality risk at baseline and within 7 days. Models were evaluated using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC). Results were presented at a national meeting, where an audience poll ranked models before AUC results were revealed. RESULTS: The audience favored the most complex model (CNN) for real-world application, though logistic regression achieved the highest AUC on test data. Teams employed varied feature selection, tuning, and evaluation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Logistic regression outperformed more complex models, highlighting the importance of selecting modeling methods based on data characteristics, interpretability, and expertise rather than model complexity alone. IMPACT: By demonstrating that model complexity does not necessarily equate to better predictive performance, this research encourages the careful selection of modeling approaches.
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 | 0.053 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".