Machine Learning Models for Predicting Neonatal Mortality: A Systematic Review

被引:57
作者
Mangold, Cheyenne [1 ]
Zoretic, Sarah [1 ]
Thallapureddy, Keerthi [1 ]
Moreira, Axel [2 ]
Chorath, Kevin [3 ]
Moreira, Alvaro [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas Hlth San Antonio, Dept Pediat, San Antonio, TX 78229 USA
[2] Baylor Coll Med, Dept Pediat, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[3] Univ Penn, Dept Otolaryngol, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Artificial intelligence; Neonate; Mortality; Systematic review; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL-NETWORK; HEALTH RECORD DATA; LOGISTIC-REGRESSION; DECISION-SUPPORT; RISK; VALIDATION; ENSEMBLE; DEVELOP; SEPSIS;
D O I
10.1159/000516891
中图分类号
R72 [儿科学];
学科分类号
100202 ;
摘要
Introduction: Approximately 7,000 newborns die every day, accounting for almost half of child deaths under 5 years of age. Deciphering which neonates are at increased risk for mortality can have an important global impact. As such, integrating high computational technology (e.g., artificial intelligence [AI]) may help identify the early and potentially modifiable predictors of neonatal mortality. Therefore, the objective of this study was to collate, critically appraise, and analyze neonatal prediction studies that included AI. Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane, OVID, and Google Scholar. We included studies that used AI (e.g., machine learning (ML) and deep learning) to formulate prediction models for neonatal death. We excluded small studies (n < 500 individuals) and studies using only antenatal factors to predict mortality. Two independent investigators screened all articles for inclusion. The data collection consisted of study design, number of models, features used per model, feature importance, internal and/or external validation, and calibration analysis. Our primary outcome was the average area under the receiving characteristic curve (AUC) or sensitivity and specificity for all models included in each study. Results: Of 434 articles, 11 studies were included. The total number of participants was 1.26 M with gestational ages ranging from 22 weeks to term. Number of features ranged from 3 to 66 with timing of prediction as early as 5 min of life to a maximum of 7 days of age. The average number of models per study was 4, with neural network, random forest, and logistic regression comprising the most used models (58.3%). Five studies (45.5%) reported calibration plots and 2 (18.2%) conducted external validation. Eight studies reported results by AUC and 5 studies reported the sensitivity and specificity. The AUC varied from 58.3% to 97.0%. The mean sensitivities ranged from 63% to 80% and specificities from 78% to 99%. The best overall model was linear discriminant analysis, but it also had a high number of features (n = 17). Discussion/Conclusion: ML models can accurately predict death in neonates. This analysis demonstrates the most commonly used predictors and metrics for AI prediction models for neonatal mortality. Future studies should focus on external validation, calibration, as well as deployment of applications that can be readily accessible to health-care providers.
引用
收藏
页码:394 / 405
页数:12
相关论文
共 46 条
[1]   Prediction of death for extremely low birth weight neonates [J].
Ambalavanan, N ;
Carlo, WA ;
Bobashev, G ;
Mathias, E ;
Liu, B ;
Poole, K ;
Fanaroff, AA ;
Stoll, BJ ;
Ehrenkranz, R ;
Wright, LL .
PEDIATRICS, 2005, 116 (06) :1367-1373
[2]   Comparison of the prediction of extremely low birth weight neonatal mortality by regression analysis and by neural networks [J].
Ambalavanan, N ;
Carlo, WA .
EARLY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, 2001, 65 (02) :123-137
[3]  
[Anonymous], GOAL 3
[4]   Early hospital mortality prediction of intensive care unit patients using an ensemble learning approach [J].
Awad, Aya ;
Bader-El-Den, Mohamed ;
McNicholas, James ;
Briggs, Jim .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2017, 108 :185-195
[5]   Prospective and External Evaluation of a Machine Learning Model to Predict In-Hospital Mortality of Adults at Time of Admission [J].
Brajer, Nathan ;
Cozzi, Brian ;
Gao, Michael ;
Nichols, Marshall ;
Revoir, Mike ;
Balu, Suresh ;
Futoma, Joseph ;
Bae, Jonathan ;
Setji, Noppon ;
Hernandez, Adrian ;
Sendak, Mark .
JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2020, 3 (02)
[6]   C-statistic: A brief explanation of its construction, interpretation and limitations [J].
Caetano, S. J. ;
Sonpavde, G. ;
Pond, G. R. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2018, 90 :130-132
[7]   Using Electronic Health Record Data to Develop and Validate a Prediction Model for Adverse Outcomes in the Wards [J].
Churpek, Matthew M. ;
Yuen, Trevor C. ;
Park, Seo Young ;
Gibbons, Robert ;
Edelson, Dana P. .
CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2014, 42 (04) :841-848
[8]   Empirical assessment of bias in machine learning diagnostic test accuracy studies [J].
Crowley, Ryan J. ;
Tan, Yuan Jin ;
Ioannidis, John P. A. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL INFORMATICS ASSOCIATION, 2020, 27 (07) :1092-1101
[9]   Machine Learning in Medicine [J].
Deo, Rahul C. .
CIRCULATION, 2015, 132 (20) :1920-1930
[10]   Machine Learning Energies of 2 Million Elpasolite (ABC2D6) Crystals [J].
Faber, Felix A. ;
Lindmaa, Alexander ;
von Lilienfeld, O. Anatole ;
Armiento, Rickard .
PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, 2016, 117 (13)