Next Article in Journal
Identifying Ecological Corridors and Networks in Mountainous Areas
Next Article in Special Issue
The Impact of the COVID-19 Self-Isolation Policy on the Occupations of Vulnerable Groups
Previous Article in Journal
Refugee Women with a History of Trauma: Gender Vulnerability in Relation to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Previous Article in Special Issue
Risk Assessment of the SME Sector Operations during the COVID-19 Pandemic
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 9
10.3390/ijerph18094807
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Decision-Tree Approach to Assist in Forecasting the Outcomes of the Neonatal Brain Injury

by
Bogdan Mihai Neamțu
1,2,3,
Gabriela Visa
3,
Ionela Maniu
3,4,
Maria Livia Ognean
1,5,
Rubén Pérez-Elvira
6,7,*,
Andrei Dragomir
3,8,
Maria Agudo
6,
Ciprian Radu Șofariu
3,
Mihaela Gheonea
9,
Antoniu Pitic
2,
Remus Brad
2,
Claudiu Matei
10,
Minodora Teodoru
1 and
Ciprian Băcilă
10,11
1
Clinical Department, Faculty of Medicine, Lucian Blaga University Sibiu, 550169 Sibiu, Romania
2
Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Lucian Blaga University Sibiu, 550025 Sibiu, Romania
3
Research and Telemedicine Center in Pediatric Neurology, Pediatric Clinical Hospital Sibiu, 550166 Sibiu, Romania
4
Department of Mathematics and Informatics, Faculty of Sciences, Lucian Blaga University Sibiu, 550012 Sibiu, Romania
5
Neonatology Department, Sibiu Clinical and Emergency County Hospital, Lucian Blaga University Sibiu, 550245 Sibiu, Romania
6
Neuropsychophysiology Lab., NEPSA Rehabilitación Neurológica, 37003 Salamanca, Spain
7
Biological and Health Psychology Department, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 280048 Madrid, Spain
8
The N.1 Institute for Health, National University of Singapore, 28, Medical Dr. #05-COR, Singapore 117456, Singapore
9
Neonatology Department, Craiova Clinical and Emergency County Hospital, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
10
Dental and Nursing Medical Department, Faculty of Medicine, Lucian Blaga University Sibiu, 550169 Sibiu, Romania
11
Dr. Gheorghe Preda Psychiatric Hospital, 550082 Sibiu, Romania
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(9), 4807; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18094807
Submission received: 27 January 2021 / Revised: 24 April 2021 / Accepted: 26 April 2021 / Published: 30 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Effects of the Pandemic on Occupational and Environmental Safety)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Neonatal brain injury or neonatal encephalopathy (NE) is a significant morbidity and mortality factor in preterm and full-term newborns. NE has an incidence in the range of 2.5 to 3.5 per 1000 live births carrying a considerable burden for neurological outcomes such as epilepsy, cerebral palsy, cognitive impairments, and hydrocephaly. Many scoring systems based on different risk factor combinations in regression models have been proposed to predict abnormal outcomes. Birthweight, gestational age, Apgar scores, pH, ultrasound and MRI biomarkers, seizures onset, EEG pattern, and seizure duration were the most referred predictors in the literature. Our study proposes a decision-tree approach based on clinical risk factors for abnormal outcomes in newborns with the neurological syndrome to assist in neonatal encephalopathy prognosis as a complementary tool to the acknowledged scoring systems. We retrospectively studied 188 newborns with associated encephalopathy and seizures in the perinatal period. Etiology and abnormal outcomes were assessed through correlations with the risk factors. We computed mean, median, odds ratios values for birth weight, gestational age, 1-min Apgar Score, 5-min Apgar score, seizures onset, and seizures duration monitoring, applying standard statistical methods first. Subsequently, CART (classification and regression trees) and cluster analysis were employed, further adjusting the medians. Out of 188 cases, 84 were associated to abnormal outcomes. The hierarchy on etiology frequencies was dominated by cerebrovascular impairments, metabolic anomalies, and infections. Both preterms and full-terms at risk were bundled in specific categories defined as high-risk 75–100%, intermediate risk 52.9%, and low risk 0–25% after CART algorithm implementation. Cluster analysis illustrated the median values, profiling at a glance the preterm model in high-risk groups and a full-term model in the inter-mediate-risk category. Our study illustrates that, in addition to standard statistics methodologies, decision-tree approaches could provide a first-step tool for the prognosis of the abnormal outcome in newborns with encephalopathy.

1. Introduction

Neonatal brain injury or neonatal encephalopathy (NE) is a significant morbidity and mortality factor in both preterm and full-term newborns. The incidence of NE is estimated in the range of 2.5 to 3.5 per 1000 live births, carrying an important burden for later neurological outcomes such as epilepsy, cerebral palsy, cognitive impairments and hydrocephaly [1]. Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE), cerebral hemorrhage (HC), infections (INF), metabolic abnormalities (METAB) are all severe etiologies in this complex clinical concept. At a molecular level, many pathways were incriminated in apoptosis of premyelinating oligodendrocytes or subplate neurons involved in perinatal brain development. Glutamate rising concentrations or free radical reactive species (both oxygen and hydrogen) in HIE, inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α, IL-1b, IL-6, 12, 15, 18 from activated microglia and astrocytes and low pH in INF (including SARS-Cov2), free iron secondary to HC were extensively mentioned in both white and grey matter injuries. On a different scale, MRI images showed an association between white matter injuries and loss of the grey matter volume documented in both preterms and full-terms [2,3]. The most referred areas were in thalamus, basal ganglia, dentate cerebellar nuclei and hippocampus.
Many research reports associated specific MRI injury patterns with lower cut-off values for Apgar scores, birthweight and/or pH. More than two-thirds of the NE cases with brain injury occur near the birth time, and a prompt postnatal therapeutic intervention could alleviate the outcomes in newborns at risk [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Therefore, many scoring systems attempts based on a widely used model (the logistic regression) were proposed for different combinations of independent risk factors to assist in neonatal encephalopathy outcome prediction. Birthweight < 2800 grams, Gestational age < 37 weeks, Apgar scores < 7, ultrasound categories (different degrees from I to IV scale and different locations of hemorrhages, hydrocephaly, cerebral malformations) and MRI biomarkers (white and grey matter injuries), seizures onset < 24 h or >72 h, seizure duration values > 12 h, EEG pattern (moderate abnormal or severe abnormal) were the most frequent biomarkers analyzed in relation to abnormal outcomes [5,6,7,8,9,10]. Several studies associated specific MRI injury patterns with lower cut-off values for Apgar scores, Birthweight and/or pH, and lower or higher cut-off values for seizures onset. However, their distinctive significance levels as risk predictors depended on the studied population (full-terms or preterms) and the study designs. Consequently, different cut-off values were reported for the same biomarkers [7]. Moreover, the main outcomes in neonatal encephalopathy syndrome such as cognitive impairments, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, or hydrocephaly frequently overlap. Currently, the adverse outcomes for neonatal encephalopathy syndrome associating seizures are either studied distinctively for each etiology and each population (preterms or full-terms) or combined [5,6,7,8,9,10]. A recent meta-analysis performed by Glass et al., 2018 on neonates with brain injury both in preterm and full-term neonates associating seizures as comorbidities proposed a risk stratification strategy for both preterms and full-terms to forecast the outcomes based on the combination of the most frequently reported risk factors, to properly categorize the neonates at risk [10].
Consequently, our objective was to pursue a risk-stratification model by developing a decision-tree algorithm and subsequently a cluster analysis. The goal was to interlink the most accessible parameters in neonatology units worldwide, even in the low-income countries with poor resource settings. This algorithm would assist as a preliminary tool to forecast the outcomes in an integrated manner generating risk groups and their median profiles based on these risk factors. It could complement the acknowledged scoring systems based on logistic regression which typically employ the independent predictors. Considering the increasing reports of neonatal neurological impairments within the ongoing COVID-19 worldwide pandemic context such an approach would add importance in clinical practice [11,12]. Our model addressed both the preterm and term categories, irrespective of the etiology or the composite nature of the outcome (epilepsy, cerebral palsy, cognitive impairments, and hydrocephaly) as it was already suggested in the Glass’s meta-analysis. To date, the literature reporting other algorithmic tools than logistic regression is scarce and focused on specific etiology (HIE) and specific population (full-terms) [5]. Defining the risk groups in both neonatal categories (preterms and full-terms) would provide a fast preliminary evaluation by the health practitioners (pediatric neurologists or neonatologists) and the risk prognosis for the affected neonates. We considered all available predictors from the medical records examined. Etiology, gender, area (rural/urban), birth weight, gestational age, 1-minute Apgar score, 5-min Apgar score, ultrasound imaging markers, seizures onset, seizures duration monitoring and EEG patterns were studied as risk factors for an abnormal outcome in composite newborns populations (preterms and full-terms) with encephalopathy syndrome associating seizures as comorbidity to develop the model.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patients and Methods

Our retrospective study included 188 newborns admitted between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2005, to the Neonatal Compartment of Sibiu County Hospital and further evaluated in the Neurological Compartment of Pediatric Clinical Hospital from Sibiu, Romania. The data were examined according to the Declaration of Helsinki principles and the study was approved by the institutional ethics committee (ethical approval code 6475/02.11.2018). The analysis focused on both prematures and full-terms with associated neurological syndrome and seizures as comorbidities during the perinatal period. Medical data for each patient were reviewed regarding pregnancy, maternal pathology, gender, area (rural/urban), birth type, 1-min and 5-min Apgar scores, birth weight, gestational age, birth pathology, clinical exam logs and seizures’ treatment.
Other medical records, including laboratory results or imaging biomarkers (ultrasound or CT when available) were interpreted with respect to the etiology (HIE, HC, INF, METAB) and outcomes [7,8,9,10,13,14]. We categorized the available seizures recordings as subtle, clonic, tonic, myoclonic, generalized with or without EEG epochs confirmation [7,14,15]. Data regarding seizures onset, seizure duration monitoring, recurrences and electrical semiology were retrieved from medical charts. The records selection was performed by certified personnel. Recurrences mentioned in the records were considered in case of symptoms reappearance after 24 h of therapeutic control. We considered in our analysis the neurological sequels evaluated at the last follow-up during the first two years after birth [6]. Abnormal outcomes were assessed using standardized tests according to literature guidelines [6,8,16,17,18,19] (more details in Appendix A.1). The global outcome was defined as “abnormal”-1, if the patient had at least one of the following: epilepsy, cerebral palsy, one or more developmental domains delays and hydrocephaly and normal-0, otherwise.

2.2. Data Analysis

2.2.1. Statistical Analysis

Numerical variables were assessed by calculating mean and median values, standard deviation, 95% confidence interval, minimum, maximum, interquartile range (IQR). Then, we applied the Student t-test on normally distributed data or the Mann–Whitney test on non-normally distributed data. For qualitative variables analysis, we estimated percentages. Fischer and chi-square (χ2)-tests were employed to study their association with outcomes (odds ratio-ORs, 95% confidence interval CI, p-value). Statistical significance level considered was 0.05. To our goal, we subsequently applied the decision-tree approach (CART) to forecast the abnormal outcome and cluster analysis to study the distribution of this outcome.

2.2.2. Machine Learning Approach

Our analysis design was implemented in a pipelined fashion, first using descriptive statistics on the studied parameters, then CART and cluster analysis to extract and visualize specific risk groups.
Decision trees are a machine learning technique for classifying the data into categories, prospecting the hidden patterns within the data, as outlined in previous studies [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. The resulting graph is a tree-like model of decisions considering the target variable, in our case the global outcome previously presented. It is generated backwards from the root at the top and branching until the split stops, interlinking all the predictors to forecast the global outcome. Branching is made on a condition (internal node) placed on the predictor variable to further split in the branches to reach a decision. The end of a branch is the “leaf”, the decision or the child node. The stopping criteria for growing the tree might be chosen as either longest path length from top root to a child node, or selecting a minimum number of training inputs for each child node.
We computed the CART models in pruning mode, considering different combinations of the risk factors previously studied using standard statistical methods. After the tree is grown to its full depth until stopping criteria are met, pruning trims the tree down (removing the nodes that provide less additional information) to the smallest subtree that has an acceptable risk value (more details are presented in Appendix A.3.1). CART pruned models perform cross-validation technique using cost-complexity approaches for trimming in order to minimize the average of the mean square prediction errors and to increase the stability of the model [21,24,25,27,28].
Only the models selecting predictors with the accuracy of more than 70% for abnormal outcomes forecast as a cut-off point of performance were kept for further analysis [5,20,21,22,23,24,25].
Subsequently, for the selected model, we explored in the form of prognostic rules for an abnormal outcome, the interdependencies between the risk factors selected by the algorithm. Then, we proceeded to refine our analysis by grouping the patients in low, intermediate or high-risk categories based on complications rates generated by CART decision tree [5].
Finally, cluster analysis was implemented at the end of the analysis pipeline as a profiling tool to highlight the significant differences of central tendencies values for the prognostic factors chain found in the low risk, intermediate and high-risk groups.
Cluster analysis is an unsupervised learning tool for clustering observations according to the similarity of their characteristics [21]. In our study, we used the Two-step Cluster Component algorithm, a combination of K-means cluster method and hierarchical cluster method, to generate, detect and select the groups based on both continuous and categorical data types (more details are presented in Appendix A.3.2).
To this goal, each case is added based on its similarity to existing nodes. Then, using the hierarchical cluster method, it clusters the sub-clusters from the previous step (leaf nodes of the CF tree). As a result, patients belonging to different clusters are different from each other, and patients belonging to the same cluster are similar, according to the grouping based on indicators scores. The number of clusters is selected in a two-stage approach cluster analysis based either on (AIC-Akaike Information Criterion or BIC-Schwarz’s Bayesian Criterion). This approach provides relevant differences when visualizing between and within the identified risk groups in CART output.

3. Results

For the studied period, in the Sibiu County, there were 48,377 deliveries (~4838/year) recorded in the neonatal departments (Sibiu, Mediaş and Cisnadie towns). During this period the medical records revealed 206 cases with neonatal seizures (121 full-terms and 85 preterms) of which 28 ended in death. A detailed presentation regarding pregnancy pathology, birth events and the treatment type for seizures is presented in Appendix A.2.

3.1. Etiology

From the total cohort of 206 cases, almost half of the remaining 188 cases, were associated with abnormal outcomes (Table 1). Cerebrovascular etiology, with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, cerebral hemorrhage or both, was by far the most common cause of neurological sequels development. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that most of the infections ended in neurological sequels. The same pattern could be noticed for malformations and strokes, while in metabolic disorders, only a few cases had an abnormal outcome. Most of the cases often presented a combination of abnormal outcome types. Nevertheless, the distribution was dominated by the motor deficits followed by cognitive deficits, epilepsy, and hydrocephaly.

3.2. Demographics

In our retrospective cohort, the male gender cases were significantly higher (70.2% vs. 29.8%). Still, more than half (59.8%) did not show any complication. Conversely, in females, approximately the same proportion of patients (55.4%) had abnormal outcomes, with a 1.85 OR (p = 0.057) considering the males as reference. Urban, rural categories distribution (59% vs. 41.0%) showed a higher number of sequels in rural cases (49.4% with OR = 1.377, but not statistically significant p = 0.284).

3.2.1. Gestational Age and Birthweight

Our data showed a prominent proportion of full terms (71.8%) versus preterms (28.2%), and a higher rate of complications was expected in prematures. In this category (<37 weeks), 58.5% of the cases presented sequelae. For comparison, in full-terms, an inverse percentage distribution of abnormal outcomes was recorded both in the 37–39 weeks category (34.9%) or >39 weeks (43.1%). Significantly lower gestational age (GA) and birth weight (BW) values were noticed in the abnormal outcome cases with 1.864 and 6.9 ORs, respectively (p = 0.089 and p = 0.000) taking GA > 39 weeks and BW > 2800 g as references. The computed means for GA (weeks) (38.29 ± 2.97-normal outcome vs. 36.27 ± 5.05-abnormal outcome, p = 0.005) and BW (grams) (3014.88 ± 636.92-normal outcome vs. 2668.63 ± 880.62-in abnormal outcome) further highlighted this observance (Table 2).

3.2.2. Apgar Scores, Reanimation and Ultrasound Imaging

On the same note, the 1 min-APGAR score < 7 was more likely to increase the risk for an abnormal outcome (OR = 2.604, p = 0.005) however 5-min APGAR score < 7 showed only a tendency (p = 0.14) to a two-times increased risk (OR = 1.935). For both AS1 and AS5, the range between 8–10 were selected as a reference. This cut-off value (<7) was noticed in both 1-min Apgar Score (AS1) and 5-min Apgar Score (AS5) data and in the range of AS1 and AS5 means (Table 2). For the entire cohort, AS5 mean values were almost a unit higher than AS1 (p = 0.000). This difference was maintained in both normal and abnormal outcome cases (p = 0.000) (Table 2).
Reanimation procedures were documented in less than 20% of the study population (15.4%), of which 58.6% were sequelar. The rest of the patients (84.6%) had an inverted percentage proportion distribution of long-term clinical course (57.9%-normal outcome and 42.1%-adverse outcome). Then, 77.2% of the total cases had moderate (42.1%) and severe (35.1%) abnormal ultrasound findings. In both normal and moderate ultrasound anomalies categories, the normal (50%) and abnormal (50%) outcomes distribution was similar. In severe ultrasound anomalies (35.1% from the total cases) 77.5% cases had an abnormal outcome. Further analysis of categories (normal, moderate abnormal and severe abnormal—Appendix A.1) revealed 3.44 OR for an abnormal outcome only in cases with severe abnormal ultrasound changes compared to normal ultrasound cases considered as reference or to moderate anomalies ultrasound cases.

3.2.3. Seizure Events

The most prominent seizure types associated with neurological complications were subtle seizures followed by clonic, tonic, myoclonic and generalized seizures. However, more than half of the cases presenting clonic, myoclonic and/or generalized seizure types had an abnormal outcome (Table 3).
Median values for seizures onset (ONS) were recorded after the first 24 h of neonatal life. Higher values were documented for the abnormal outcome instances, however not statistically significant. This was also the case for seizures duration monitoring (SDM) medians (Table 4). Again, a further analysis on the categorial approach drew attention to the tendency for the risk odds in adverse long-term outcomes evolution (58.3%) vs. normal outcomes evolution (41.7%) with 1.96 OR for ONS > 72 h (13.5% of the total cases) (p = 0.141). The 24–72 h interval (60.7% of the total cases) was taken as a reference. In both subcategories, ONS < 24 h (25.8% of the total cases) and ONS between 24–72 h, more than 55% cases (56.5% and 58.3% respectively) were distributed in the normal outcome group but not statistically significant (p = 0.834). Both SDM between 12–24 h and SDM > 24 h subcategories had an approximately 2 OR (2.058 and 1.871) for an abnormal outcome.
On the available EEG records, regardless of long-term clinical evolution, a case in two presented modified patterns. A thorough analysis of EEG traces correlated with long-term clinical course indicated that abnormal EEG epochs cases were 3.33 to 5 times more likely to develop an abnormal outcome depending on pattern severity (moderate or severe).
More than two-thirds of the patients had a medium form of encephalopathy (69.2% of the total cases) and the rest a severe form (30.8% of the total cases). It should be noted that from the medium form, over a half (59.5%) had a normal outcome while an inverted proportion was recorded in the severe form (57.1%) (p = 0.037, OR = 1.961).

3.3. CART and CLUSTER Analysis

The elected CART algorithm model classified the cases with an abnormal outcome using as risk factors five parameters of interest, namely BW, AS1 and AS5, ONS and SDM (Figure 1).
The overall accuracy for the CART analysis was 73.4% (75% for the abnormal outcome). We considered specific categories defined as high-risk 75–100% (nodes 6, 10, 11, 14), intermediate risk 52.9% (node 8) and low risk 0–25% (nodes 4, 12, 13).
In the high-risk category (38 cases), every node analysis on a case-by-case approach revealed interesting predictor combinations related to the etiology, in both term and preterm newborns. In term newborns for BW > 4000 g, there was an association of either an SDM > 16 h and a complex composite etiology (HIE + HC + INF, metabolic) or an SDM ≤ 16 h but with an AS1 < 3 (node 6, 10). In both full terms or late preterms, with BW ranging between 2000 g and 3500 g and AS5 > 8, the explanation for a potential abnormal outcome is etiology per se (HIE, HC, combined HIE + HC or AVC) with seizures as comorbidities with ONS > 72 h (node 11). In very or extremely preterms we found three instances: (1) BW ≤ 2000 g, SDM > 16 h and etiology dominated by HIE, HC, INF or a combination of them (node 6); (2) BW < 2000 g, SDM ≤ 16 h and AS1 5–7 (node 10); (3) BW < 1800 g, AS1 ≤ 5, GA ≤ 34 weeks, ONS > 200 h associated with the HIE + HC and INF etiology (node 14).
With regards to the intermediate-risk, 27 cases were classified accordingly. The BW ranged between 2000 and 3500 g and AS5 < 8 (node 8). Nonetheless, the algorithm could not specify any other clinical parameter to differentiate the cases.
Further two-step cluster analysis on the nodes showed the median values for the predictor variables. An observation of great importance highlights the fact that in high-risk patients, the median values illustrated the tendencies towards a preterm newborn profile whereas in the intermediate-risk category towards the full-term. AS1 and AS5 presented slightly lower median values in full-term versus the preterm model for the risk groups. On the other hand, the SDM median in the high-risk group was almost twice as high as in the low-risk category but slightly lower than in the intermediate-risk group. Then, in the high-risk group, the median value for ONS was almost three times higher compared to median values in the low and intermediate-risk cases suggesting an important prognostic role for this parameter (Figure 2).
A synoptic insight regarding algorithms output brought forward a clustered clinical picture (Table 5). Both preterms and full-terms were distributed on risk categories based on etiology and specific predictors’ values. The smallest group of cases from the cohort was selected in the high-risk category considering the most incriminated etiologies (HIE, HC or their combination). The prominent distribution of preterms suffering from AVC and INF cases was also made in this class. Furthermore, the most composite outcomes from epileptic, cognitive delays, motor delays and hydrocephaly sequels were recorded in this risk group demonstrating the algorithms’ ability to link the predictors properly.

4. Discussion

The results confirmed several findings reported in other studies. Regardless of gestational age, the poor prognosis for neonatal encephalopathy came with etiology first [29]. Etiology pattern distribution was similar, although the percentages varied and were dominated by cerebrovascular etiology. Neonatal seizures comorbidities further increased the risk, especially in preterms and female gender. However, there were more male than female cases with neonatal seizures than in other reports [7,30,31,32,33,34]. Likewise, in agreement with the literature, our findings showed more numerous urban cases [35,36,37]. In reference to seizure semiology, we could not infer any conclusion for a specific seizure type role on the abnormal outcomes because many cases associated more than one seizure type. Consequently, as Pisani et al. suggested in their work, we did not input seizure semiology as a predictor in the CART algorithm [16]. Nevertheless, we noticed that in more than half of the cases with clonic, myoclonic and/or generalized seizure types, there was an abnormal outcome. Our results are in accordance with other authors’ findings regarding the most significant seizure types referred to as important risk factors, that could be associated with the abnormal outcome [8,16].
On the EEG background findings, our available records were similar to other reports regarding odds ratios and percentages for abnormal outcome in patients with moderately-severely abnormal patterns [6,7,8,16]. This was also the case for the cranial ultrasound. However, these variables showed prognostic sensitivity only within the univariate analysis. Even though the CART algorithm did link EEG background, cranial ultrasound with other predictors, we discarded these models because of the incomplete data and the consequent modest positive prediction performance [5,22,25].
In the outcome categories distribution, we found more numerous cases with motor and cognitive delays than epilepsy or hydrocephaly than in other reports. We believe the differences are based on study designs, cohorts and data consistencies as Lai et al. already suggested [8].

4.1. Preterms

Many research papers focused on age-specific neonatal populations to study etiology, risk factors and outcomes. In preterms, hemorrhage and infections were incriminated for most of the abnormal outcomes followed by HIE and stroke (focal ischemia) [38,39,40,41]. It is a known fact that neurological sequels can reach almost a double prevalence in preterm versus term neonates in primary HIE and HC [10,38,42,43,44]. Stroke in neonates is frequently associated with intrapartum complications, and HIE or INF per se are considered risk factors for stroke. As Al Yazidi et al. and Saliba et al. argued in their reports, this observation could render the outcomes in some of the cases from our cohort documented with a combination of etiologies (HIE and HC/HIE, HC and INF) [40,41]. The predictive model did classify them as high-risk patients. However, we noticed that not all preterms with serious etiology suffered an abnormal outcome which pleads for the importance of the independent predictors selected by the algorithm. The CART flowchart provided eloquent cut-off points for each independent variable at different levels revealing hidden patterns of association between them. BW had the highest importance to indicate preterms disabilities and should be linked to AS1, AS5, ONS and SDM values. Lower ranges of preterms BW (<2000 g) were linked with lower cut-off points for SDM (<16 h), AS1 (5–7 or <5) and with higher ONS (>200 h) or with higher SDM (>16 h). Preterms associating complex etiology and higher ONS (>72 h) were properly assigned in the high-risk group, even with higher ranges of BW (2000–2500 g) and AS5 (>8) suggesting the prediction importance of later seizures’ onset.
There are different opinions on low Apgar scores and higher ONS and SDM as sensitive biomarkers in preterm or late-preterm neonates along with lower ranges of BW. Low Apgar scores might be explained by physiological immaturity rather than newborn distress [45]. On the other hand, there were several reports pleading for Apgar scores as markers of severity correlating with MRI white matter injury. These findings were documented to be ten times more common in preterms than in term infants [39,46]. Regarding SDM predictor, some of the reports do not seem to correlate it with the outcome [7]. However, in preterm infants with cerebral hemorrhage or infections, longer SDM and later ONS were associated with a poorer outcome [10,44,47,48,49,50]. Our findings are in accordance with the latter studies. In a nutshell, for preterms classified in high-risk groups, lower BW, with later ONS and longer SDM might suggest serious outcomes. For this combination, we must draw attention to the median Apgar values (AS1-6.31, AS5-7.6) especially that they are higher than the medians in the intermediate-risk group (AS1-5.89, AS5-7.12). These values might provide preliminary cut-off points clinically relevant for practitioners, linked with longer ONSs and SDMs, and might be considered for further clinical validation to forecast the outcomes.

4.2. Full-Terms

Similarly, in full-term neonates, our findings are consistent with other research communications. Most of the authors mentioned HIE as a frequent cause of abnormal outcomes, especially HIE grades II, III [14,29,51]. Focal ischemia, cerebral malformations and metabolic disturbances follow in order. In HIE, white matter biomarkers suggesting injury on MRI diffusion images can occur up to several days after insult, pleading for perinatal brain injury rather than in utero acquired injury [9]. As in preterms reports, we noticed different opinions among the authors regarding the sensitivity of one predictor over another. Miller et al. advocated that both GA and Apgar Scores are good predictors [9]. Li et al. emphasized the importance of GA over BW, mentioning a strong correlation between GA and the severity of MRI biomarkers [52]. In their reports, Pisani et al. pleaded for BW as a more reliable measure than the anamnestic GA, which was also the case for our algorithm output [16]. Harteman et al. and Miller et al. found that lower values of AS5 were associated with MRI images with predominant watershed injury (8.5-Harteman and 5-Miller) and basal ganglia or thalami predominant injuries (7-Harteman and 4-Miller) [9,53]. It seemed that the extent of watershed anomalies is related to long-standing antenatal risk factors while the location of the injury in basal ganglia and thalamus with acute intrapartum risk factors. The outcome was prone to be influenced mainly by basal ganglia, and thalamic lesions and Apgar scores are currently considered sensitive predictors in this regard. Moreover, Garfinkle et al. indicated a greater than five odds ratios for an adverse outcome (p < 0.05) in the case of AS1 ≤ 3 and AS5 ≤ 5 [5]. Furthermore, in many papers, AS1 (<4) was independently associated with an adverse outcome [6,8,14,54]. To summarize, the lower AS1 and AS5 scores are, the higher risks for an adverse outcome [11,14,44,45,51]. Our findings agree with this conclusion. The median values for AS1 (5.89) and AS5 (7.12) profiled the full-term in the intermediate-risk group while the AS1 (<3) placed the cases in the high-risk group even for a BW > 4000 g. Analyzing other predictors importance, we noticed that patients with single etiology and ONS (>72 h) were placed in the high-risk groups even for BW ranging between 3000–3500 g and AS1 (>8). Different reports revealed earlier ONSs and longer SDMs correlating with a poorer prognosis on epilepsy and other neurological impairments [8,38,43,50]. In several HIE studies, the ONSs were mentioned within 24 h. Nevertheless, some of the authors documented time intervals varying from 8–36 h to several days [7,12,14,29,53]. In full-terms, we report median ONSs (>36 h) and median SDMs (>15 h) in both intermediate and high-risk groups. In conclusion, risk stratification strategy using our decision tree model, complementary to independently assessing each predictor importance through logistic regression models in different scoring systems, might offer some answers to the differences presented in the literature. Longer ONSs and SDMs could have an important prognostic value in both preterms and full-terms, however more studies on larger cohorts are needed to explore this finding.

4.3. Decision-Tree Approach

Many scoring systems based on regression models with different risk factors combinations have been proposed to assist in neonatal encephalopathy prognosis. In our study, in addition to standard statistical methodologies, we used a decision-tree approach which provides a graph easy to understand for the clinicians. We succeeded in developing a preliminary prediction model for neurological outcomes based on low, intermediate and high-risk categories working both on preterms and full-terms with encephalopathy. At a glance, on cluster chart, the medians of BW, GA, and particularly ONS and SDM set apart two tendencies: namely the preterms model within the high-risk populations and the full-terms model in the intermediate-risk segments with both preterms and full-terms distributed in all categories based on the predictors cut-off points. We highlight the importance of BW as the first predictor in the prognostic chain rule. Then, we suggest that lower values regarding AS1 and AS5 in intermediate and high- risk populations should be linked with BW profiles on the superior level and very importantly with higher ONS and SDM values further down on the decision tree path. Our risk stratification strategy using CART decision-tree is consistent with other authors recommendations despite the different study designs (e.g., only full-term neonates suffering from HIE) [5]. Moreover, in a recent review of different reports regarding the scoring systems outputs based on logistic regression, Glass and the coauthors [10] proposed a risk stratification approach on similar predictors combinations for both preterms and full-terms but with different ranges related to different study designs [55,56,57,58,59,60,61]. Nevertheless, we highlight that our patterns are congruent with the predictors’ behaviors in their metadata analysis for the high-risk groups, especially for BW and ONS. Hence, we emphasize the consistencies of our model behavior, its abilities to explore hidden patterns in the data and its future perspectives [10,55].
On the other hand, different results emerged in the descriptive analysis compared to decision-tree approach suggesting a more discriminative performance for the latter. CART included in the algorithm output also the parameters with the tendency of statistical significance on the standard statistical evaluation as previously mentioned in the literature [21]. Moreover, predictors’ median values were adjusted using decision tree methods and cluster analysis. To our knowledge, this approach has important elements of originality, especially related to the design and the goal. The literature is scarce in this respect. We found a few decision-trees reports to forecast preterm birth, neonatal jaundice, neonatal infections and a reference paper for predicting neurological outcomes in full-term neonates with encephalopathy using decision trees (CART) and logistic regression [5,62,63,64,65,66]. In the latter, though, the focus was only on a specific age group (term infants) and a specific etiology causing the encephalopathy (HIE).
There are, however, some limitations to our proposed model. Even though we present a single center experience, and our sample size and study design are comparable with other authors’ approaches [5,16], a larger sample size would strengthen the confidence and the generalizability for our results. Moreover, the model could be implemented as a preliminary tool to interlink the most accessible parameters (GA, BW, AS1, AS5, ONS, SDM) in neonatology units, especially in the low-income countries with poor resource settings, still, other variables might be further considered. We have excluded from the generated models those selecting also EEG and ultrasound patterns as independent predictors because of missing data in several subjects. Nevertheless, as Glass et al. 2018 suggested in their meta-analysis, outcomes forecasting using the proposed panels of risk factors continues to be challenging. Consequently, there is a need for further multicentric randomized controlled studies, with larger sample size considering also other biomarkers with complete datasets such as pH, EEG, ultrasound, CT, MRI imaging patterns, and treatment variables such as therapeutic neonatal hypothermia. This approach might lead to an increase in classification accuracy, a higher stability of the decision-tree algorithm and a more discriminative importance regarding the cut-off points values associated with different patterns of brain injury [10]. This way, the algorithm could be adapted to perform in more advanced intensive care neonatal units.
As a final point, our algorithm classification rate of 75% for abnormal outcome in pruning mode with its built-in cross-validation in cost-complexity trimming, was comparable to the reported results with similar sample size, complete datasets, using the standard CART approach and subsequent cross-validation technique [5,22,25,28].

5. Conclusions

We proposed a prognosis tool for validation by clinicians, linking the most common predictors available at the bedside to identify the newborns at risk. In our design, the most important feature was the distribution of both preterm and full-term cases in all of the risk groups (high, intermediate and low) clustered along median profiles as it was suggested in recent meta-analyses in the literature.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.M.N., G.V., I.M., R.P.-E., A.D. and R.B.; Data Curation, B.M.N., G.V., I.M., M.L.O., A.D., M.A., M.G., A.P. and C.M.; Formal Analysis, B.M.N., G.V., I.M., R.P.-E., A.D., M.A., A.P., R.B., C.M., M.T. and C.B.; Funding Acquisition, B.M.N.; Investigation, B.M.N., G.V., M.L.O., M.A., C.R.S., M.G., C.M., M.T. and C.B.; Methodology, B.M.N., G.V., I.M., R.P.-E., A.D., M.A. and A.P.; Project Administration, B.M.N. and G.V.; Resources, B.M.N., G.V., M.L.O., C.R.S. and M.G.; Software, B.M.N., I.M., R.P.-E., A.D., C.R.S., A.P. and R.B.; Supervision, B.M.N., I.M., R.P.-E. and A.D.; Validastion, G.V., I.M., R.P.-E., A.D., A.P. and R.B.; Visualization, I.M. and A.D.; Writing—Original Draft, B.M.N., G.V., I.M., R.P.-E., A.D., R.B. and C.M.; Writing—Review and Editing, B.M.N., G.V., I.M., M.L.O., R.P.-E., A.D., M.A., A.P., R.B., C.M., M.T. and C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Project financed from Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu research grants LBUS-IRG-2017-03. It has been conducted in the Pediatric Clinic Hospital Sibiu, within the Research and Telemedicine Center in Neurological Diseases in Children-CEFORATEN project (ID 928 SMIS-CSNR 13605) financed by ANCSI with the grant number 432/21. December 2012 through the Sectoral Operational Programme. Increase of Economic Competitiveness.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The retrospective study included 188 newborns admitted between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2005, in the Neonatal Compartment of Sibiu County Hospital and further evaluated in Neurological Compartment of Pediatric Clinical Hospital from Sibiu, Romania. The data were examined according to Declaration of Helsinki principles and this study has been approved by the institutional ethics committee (ethical approval code 6475/02.11.2018).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The subjects’s parenst/tutors agreed with the further anonymized research on their data.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request due to restrictions (privacy and ethical)

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Appendix A.1. In Depth Analysis of the Subjects’ Records

We analyzed the neurological syndrome records referring to Sarnat classification criteria for moderate and severe encephalopathy (levels of consciousness-lethargic/stupor, spontaneous activity-decreased/no activity, primitive reflexes-weak, incomplete/absent, pupils-miosis/mydriasis, seizures presence/absence, heart rate-bradi/tachycardia, respiration pattern-periodic/apnea, muscle tone abnormalities-hypotonia/flaccid and posture-distal flexion/decerebrate) [5].
According to Lombroso and Holmes criteria, we interpreted EEG epochs from medical logs as normal, moderately abnormal with low voltage traces (10–50 µV), intermediate pattern, and delta-theta asymmetric waves and severely abnormal with inactive traces (<10 µV), spike-wave paroxistical bursts, suppression bursts [7]. EEG semiology was analyzed by a pediatric neurologist with expertise in neonatal EEG [6,67,68]. On ultrasound findings, we included in moderate anomalies category the small periventricular echo densities and intraventricular hemorrhages grades I and II. Severe anomalies were associated with thalamic, basal ganglia, white matter, cerebral cortex or intraventricular hemorrhages of III and IV grades, hydrocephaly, cerebral malformations [6,8,16].
The etiologies triggering neonatal encephalopathy were documented based on medical history, imaging diagnosis (ultrasound, CT or MRI when available), laboratory analysis, and placental pathology. We included both single or composite etiology cases considering the acknowledged causes to be involved in the pathophysiology of the neonatal neurological syndrome [6,7,8,16]:1. Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy with either antepartum and/or intrapartum risk factors for perinatal asphyxia in the case of fetal distress and a 5 min-Apgar score < 6) [8], 2. Cerebral hemorrhage and/or stroke (ultrasound, computed tomography-CT) [6,8,16], 3. Metabolic impairments (electrolytes deficits, hypoglycemia, inborn error of metabolism on laboratory analysis) [6,8], 4. Infections (laboratory analysis, positive cultures either on CSF or blood cultures) [6], 5. Cerebral malformations (ultrasound, CT or MRI when available, history of maternal exposure to infection, drugs use, toxins or trauma [8], 6. Drugs.
The neonates with a medical record of encephalopathy and seizures in the neonatal intensive care were further monitored as infants and toddlers by the pediatric neurologist based on the standardized institutional protocol. We considered in our analysis the neurological sequels evaluated at the last follow-up in the first two years after birth [6]. Abnormal outcomes were assessed at 1 month, 6 months, first year and second year of age using standardized tests based on the literature endorsement [6,8,17,18,19,69]:
(1)
Epilepsy was categorized accordingly, based on the proposed guidelines of International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE). The infants presenting recurrent unprovoked seizures events were classified as epileptic.
(2)
Cerebral palsy was clinically formulated as an early non-progressive motor deficit with objective changes in motor movements and posture on medical examination according to the guidelines provided by the Executive Committee for the Definition of Cerebral Palsy in 2005 [17].
(3)
Hydrocephaly was defined based on working definition proposed by International Society for Hydrocephalus and Cerebrospinal Fluid Disorders and as an active distension of the ventricular system of the brain resulting from the inadequate passage of CSF from its point of production within the ventricles to its point of resorption into the systemic circulation [18,19].
(4)
The developmental delay was defined based on the Practice Guidelines proposed by the American Academy of Neurology-Child Neurology Society Practice Guidelines. We looked for a significant delay, at least two standard deviations below the mean with standardized tests, affecting one or more developmental domains (global delay): Gross or fine motor, Speech/language, Cognition, Social/personal, Activities of daily living. We collected thru standardized questionnaires completed by the pediatric neurologist for each patient for the evaluations at 1 month, 6 months, first year and second year of life, based on Munich Functional Development Diagnostics standardized tests.
The global outcome was defined as “abnormal” if the patient had at least one of the following: epilepsy, cerebral palsy, one or more developmental domains delays and hydrocephaly.

Appendix A.2. Pregnancy Pathologies and Seizures’ Management

Pregnancy pathologies associated with neonatal seizures were represented by imminent abortion/premature delivery (37 cases), respiratory infections (8 cases), urinary tract infection (9 cases), pregnancy induced hypertension (8 cases), twin pregnancy (4 cases), antepartum hemorrhages (2 cases), antepartum trauma (2 cases), hydramnios (1 case). Imminent abortion was more frequent in the preterms (25.9% cases) compared to full-terms (9.9% cases) (p = 0.004). Placental pathology has been documented in 4.35% of the cases. The most frequent category was placenta praevia (5 cases) followed by placental abruption (2 cases) and retroplacental hematoma (1 case). Two thirds of the cases were natural childbirths while the rest of them were cesarean. The most frequent pathology corelated with the birth event was nuchal cord (30 cases) followed by amniotic fluid aspiration (24 cases), forceps delivery (6 cases), umbilical cord prolapse (1 case), umbilical cord knots (1 case), mother hemorrhagic shock at delivery (1 case). Intrauterine growth restriction was noticed in 38 cases of full-terms neonates and in 10.6% of the preterms (p = 0.01).The hierarchy in descending order for the number of cases related to fetus status was the following: 1. acute fetal distress (100 cases), 2. chronic fetal distress with acute episodes (63 cases), 3. amniotic fluid aspiration (24 cases), 4. fetal chronic distress without acute episodes (17 cases), 5. hyaline membrane disease (22 cases), 9 macrosomes (9 cases).
The antiepileptic treatment administered in the acute phase consisted of phenobarbital (20 mg/kg iv loading dose and 3–4 mg/kg/day iv maintainance dose) as a first-line therapy and diazepam (0.1–0.3 mg/kg iv/ir up to 3 administrations/day) as a second-line. In the recurrences, phenobarbital treatment was maintained at 2–4 mg/kg/day. Out of 188 cases, 22 patients developed epilepsy requiring chronic antiepileptic treatment. For most of these cases (17) valproate monotherapy efficiently managed the condition. The rest of the cases in this subset required bitherapy or polytherapy (5) with valproate associated with one or more of the following drugs: phenobarbital, acetazolamide, lamotrigine, ACTH, topiramate, clonazepam.

Appendix A.3. Mathematical Models for CART and CLUSTER Algorithms

Appendix A.3.1. CART Algorithm

CART is a binary splitting decision-tree using Gini index (Equation (A1)) and entropy rule for data partitioning based on predictor variables and nodes purity, from parent to child node. The best solution with the most significant increase in node purity is chosen from all the possible splitting ways. The process runs recursively until the stopping criteria are reached, or no reduction in node impurity is possible.
The purpose is to identify the best split point (cut-off value) for a predictor variable defined as the point that maximizes the splitting criteria based on Gini index (Equation (A1)), Twoing impurity measure in case of categorial variables or LSD (Least Squares Deviation) impurity measure in case of continuous variables. Then, the algorithm finds the best node split choosing the predictor that maximizes the splitting criterion. It produces the highest reduction in node impurity. Once the value of a variable is selected, the node is split in two, and the process is reiterated to each “child” node [21,22,23,24,25,70]
The process stops when no further gain can be made, or some pre-set stopping rules are met. The minimum change in improvement threshold is a user-specified level, usually set at 0.0001.
The Gini impurity measure at a node t is defined as:
i ( t ) = ∑ k , l P ( k ∣ t ) P ( l   t )
where k , l (1, …, K)—index of the class, P ( k | t ) —probability of a case in class k given that it falls into node t. At node t, the best split s of the node t is chosen to maximize the splitting criterion.
CART decision tree has the capability to work with different data types and distributions, is robust to outliers, handling the missing values effectively through surrogate splits with its fully automated mechanism [21,22,23,24,25,70].

Appendix A.3.2. CLUSTER Algorithm

This approach identifies pre-clusters or groupings firstly, based on Euclidean (A2) or Log-likelihood distance (A3)–(A5) whether the variables are continuous or categorical, successively constructing a Cluster Features (CF) Tree [71,72,73].
d Euclidian   ( B , C ) =   ( X B − X C ) 2 + ( Y B − Y C ) 2
d ( m , n ) = ξ m + ξ n −   ξ 〈 m ,   n 〉
ξ s = − N s ( ∑ p = 1 K A 1 2 log ( σ ^ p 2 + σ ^ rp 2 ) + ∑ p = 1 K B E ^ rp )
E ^ rp = − ∑ l = 1 L p N rpl N r log ( N rpl N r )
where B, C are 2 elements from the data input in the Equation (A2), d (m, n) represents the distance between clusters m and n in Equation (A3); <m, n> are the indexes indicating the cluster generated from combining clusters m and n combination; KA-stands for continuous variables total number, while K B -for categorical variables total number; Lp-defines the categories’ number for the p-th categorical variable (A4); Nrpl represents the records number in cluster r whose categorical variable p takes l category; Npl represents the records number in categorical variable p that take the l category; σ ^ p 2 —represents the estimated variance (dispersion) of the continuous variable p, for the entire dataset; σ ^ rp 2 —defines the estimated variance of the continuous variable p, in cluster n.

References

  1. Kurinczuk, J.J.; White-Koning, M.; Badawi, N. Epidemiology of neonatal encephalopathy and hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy. Early Hum. Dev. 2010, 86, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Iliodromiti, Z.; Zygouris, D.; Karagianni, P.; Belitsos, P.; Daniilidis, A.; Vrachnis, N. Chapter4-brain injury in preterm infants. In Neonatal Care, Deborah Raines and Zoe Iliodromiti; IntechOpen: London, England, 2012; pp. 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Wyatt, J.S. Mechanisms of brain injury in the Newborn. Eye 2007, 21, 1261–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Volpe, J.J. Brain injury in premature infants: A complex amalgam of destructive and developmental disturbances. Lancet Neurol. 2009, 8, 110–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Ambalavanan, N.; Carlo, W.A.; Shankaran, S.; Bann, C.M.; Emrich, S.L.; Higgins, R.D.; Tyson, J.E.; O’Shea, T.M.; Laptook, A.R.; Ehrenkranz, R.A.; et al. Predicting outcome of neonates diagnosed with hypoxemicischemic encephalopathy. Pediatrics 2006, 118, 2084–2093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Garfinkle, J.; Shevell, M.I. Prognostic factors and development of a scoring system for outcome of neonatal seizures in term infants. Eur. J. Paediatr. Neurol. 2011, 15, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Soltirovska-Salamon, A.; Neubauer, D.; Petrovcic, A.; Paro-Panjan, D. Risk factors and scoring system as a prognostic tool for epilepsy after neonatal seizures. Pediatr. Neurol. 2014, 50, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lai, Y.H.; Ho, C.S.; Chiu, N.C.; Tseng, C.F.; Huang, Y.L. Prognostic factors of developmental outcome in neonatal seizures in term infants. Pediatr. Neonatol. 2013, 54, 166–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Miller, S.P.; Ramaswamy, V.; Michelson, D.; Barkovich, A.J.; Holshouser, B.; Wycliffe, N.; Glidden, D.V.; Deming, D.; Partridge, J.C.; Wu, Y.W.; et al. Patterns of brain injury in term neonatal encephalopathy. J. Pediatr. 2005, 146, 453–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Glass, H.C.; Grinspan, Z.M.; Shellhaas, R.A. Outcomes after acute symptomatic seizures in neonates. Semin. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018, 23, 218–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stafstrom, C.E.; Jantzie, L.L. COVID-19: Neurological considerations in neonates and children. Children (Basel) 2020, 7, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Zimmermann, P.; Curtis, N. COVID-19 in children, pregnancy and neonates: A review of epidemiologic and clinical features. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 2020, 39, 469–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Sarnat, H.B.; Sarnat, M.S. Neonatal encephalopathy following fetal distress. A clinical and electroencephalographic study. Arch. Neurol. 1976, 33, 696–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Nunes, M.L.; Martins, M.P.; Barea, B.M.; Wainberg, R.C.; Da Costa, J.C. Neurological outcome of newborns with neonatal seizures: A cohort study in a tertiary university hospital. Arq. Neuro Psiquiatr. 2008, 66, 168–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Volpe, J.J. Chapter 5-neonatal seizures. In Neurology of the Newborn, 5th ed.; Saunders Elsevier: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2008; pp. 203–245. ISBN 9781416039952. [Google Scholar]
  16. Pisani, F.; Sisti, L.; Seri, S. A scoring system for early prognostic assessment after neonatal seizures. Pediatrics 2009, 124, e580–e587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Bax, M.; Goldstein, M.; Rosenbaum, P.; Leviton, A.; Paneth, N.; Bernard, D.; Jacobsson, B.; Damiano, D. Proposed definition and classification of cerebral palsy, April 2005-Introduction. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2015, 47, 571–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Rekate, H.L. A consensus on the classification of hydrocephalus: Its utility in the assessment of abnormalities of cerebrospinal fluid dynamics. Childs Nerv. Syst. 2011, 27, 1535–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Wright, Z.; Larrew, T.W.; Eskandari, R. Pediatric hydrocephalus: Current state of diagnosis and treatment. Pediatr. Rev. 2016, 37, 478–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Breiman, L.; Friedman, J.; Olshen, R.; Stone, C. Classification and Regression Trees; Chapman & Hall/CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hastie, T.J.; Tibshirani, R.J.; Friedman, J.H. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference and Prediction, 2nd ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; ISBN 978-0-387-84857-0. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hapfelmeier, A.; Hothorn, T.; Ulm, K. Recursive partitioning on incomplete data using surrogate decisions and multiple imputation. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2012, 56, 1552–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Valencia-Zapata, G.A.; Salazar-Uribe, J.C. Classification and regression trees for handling missing values in a CMBD to reduce malware in an information system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Science (ICDATA); The Steering Committee of The World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering and Applied Computing (WorldComp), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 16–19 July 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Quinlan, R. Unknown attribute values in induction. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Machine Learning; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1989; pp. 164–168. [Google Scholar]
  25. Tierney, N.J.; Harden, F.A.; Harden, M.J.; Mengersen, K.L. Using decision trees to understand structure in missing data. BMJ Open 2015, 5, e007450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. McDonough, T.; Paolicchi, J.; Heier, L.; Das, N.; Engel, M.; Perlman, J.; Grinspan, Z. Prediction of future epilepsy in neonates with HIE who received selective head cooling. J. Child Neurol. 2017, 32, 630–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Patel, N.; Upadhyay, S. Study of various decision tree pruning methods with their empirical comparison in WEKA. Int. J. Comp. Appl. 2012, 60, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hayes, T.; Usami, S.; Jacobucci, R.; McArdle, J. Using Classification and Regression Trees (CART) and Random Forests to Analyze Attrition: Results from two simulations. Psychol. Aging 2015, 30, 911–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Pressler, R.M. Neonatal Seizures, The National Society for Epilepsy; Library of Articles: Chalfont St Peter, Buckinghamshire, UK, 2015; Chapter 6. [Google Scholar]
  30. Brunquell, P.J.; Glennon, C.M.; DiMario, F.J.; Lerer, T.; Eisenfeld, L. Prediction of outcome based on clinical seizure type in newborn infants. J. Pediatr. 2002, 140, 707–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Glass, H.C. Neonatal seizures. Curr. Treat. Options Neurol. 2009, 11, 405–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Sabzehei, M.K.; Behnaz, B.; Hassan, B. The etiology, clinical type, and short outcome of seizures in newborns hospitalized in Besat Hospital/Hamadan/Iran. Iran. J. Child Neurol. 2014, 8, 24–28. [Google Scholar]
  33. Weeke, L.C.; Groenendaal, F.; Toet, M.C.; Groenendaal, F.; Toet, M.C.; Benders, M.J.N.L.; Nievelstein, R.A.J.; Van Rooij, L.G.M.; De Vries, L.S. The aetiology of neonatal seizures and the diagnostic contribution of neonatal cerebral magnetic resonance imaging. Dev. Med. Child. Neurol. 2015, 57, 248–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Heljic, S.; Uzicanin, S.; Catibusic, F.; Zubcevic, S. Predictors of mortality in neonates with seizures: A prospective cohort study. Med. Arch. 2016, 70, 182–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Yi, B.; Wu, L.; Liu, H.; Fang, W.; Hu, Y.; Wang, Y. Rural-urban differences of neonatal mortality in a poorly developed province of China. BMC Public Health 2011, 11, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Kayode, G.A.; Ansah, E.; Agyepong, I.A.; Amoakoh-Coleman, M.; Grobbee, D.E.; Klipstein-Grobusch, K. Individual and community determinants of neonatal mortality in Ghana: A multilevel analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014, 14, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Adewuyi, E.O.; Zhao, Y. Determinants of neonatal mortality in rural and urban Nigeria: Evidence from a population-based national survey. Pediatrics Int. 2017, 59, 190–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Ronen, G.M.; Buckley, D.; Penney, S.; Streiner, D.L. Long-term prognosis in children with neonatal seizures: A population-based study. Neurology 2007, 69, 1816–1822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Vasudevan, C.; Levene, M. Epidemiology and aetiology of neonatal seizures. Semin. Fetal Neonatal. Med. 2013, 18, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Al Yazidi, G.; Srour, M.; Wintermark, P. Risk factors for intraventricular haemorrhage in term asphyxiated newborns treated with hypothermia. Pediatr. Neurol. 2014, 50, 630–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Saliba, E.; Debillon, T.; Auvin, S.; Baud, O.; Biran, V.; Chabernaud, J.; Chabrier, S.; Cneude, F.; Cordier, A.; Darmency-Stamboul, V.; et al. Neonatal arterial ischemic stroke: Review of the current guidelines. Arch. Pédiatrie 2017, 24, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Ramaswamy, V.; Miller, S.P.; Barkovich, A.J.; Partridge, J.C.; Ferriero, D.M. Perinatal stroke in term infants with neonatal encephalopathy. Neurology 2004, 62, 2088–2091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jensen, F.E. Neonatal seizures: An update on mechanisms and management. Clin. Perinatol. 2009, 36, 881–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Pisani, F.; Copioli, C.; Turco, E.C.; Sisti, L.; Cossu, G.; Seri, S. Mortality risk after neonatal seizures in very preterm newborns. J. Child. Neurol. 2012, 27, 1264–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Eun, S.; Lee, J.M.; Yi, D.Y.; Lee, N.M.; Kim, H.; Yun, S.W.; Lim, I.; Choi, E.S.; Chae, S.A. Assessment of the association between Apgar scores and seizures in infants less than 1 year old. Seizure 2016, 37, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Rennie, J.M.; Boylan, G.B. Seizure disorders of the neonate. In Fetal and Neonatal Neurology and Neurosurgery, 4th ed.; Levene, M.I., Chervenak, F.A., Eds.; Elsevier: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2009; pp. 698–710. [Google Scholar]
  47. Buraniqi, E.; Sansevere, A.J.; Kapur, K.; Bergin, A.M.; Pearl, P.L.; Loddenkemper, T. Electrographic seizures in preterm neonates in the neonatal intensive care unit. J Child Neurol. 2017, 32, 880–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pisani, F.; Barilli, A.L.; Sisti, L.; Bevilacqua, G.; Seri, S. Preterm infants with video-EEG confirmed seizures: Outcome at 30 months of age. Brain Dev. 2008, 30, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Kwon, J.M.; Guillet, R.; Shankaran, S.; Laptook, A.R.; McDonald, S.A.; Ehrenkranz, R.A. Clinical seizures in neonatal hypoxiceischemic encephalopathy have no independent impact on neurodevelopmental outcome: Secondary analyses of date from the neonatal research network hypothermia trial. J. Child Neurol. 2011, 26, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Bergman, I.; Painter, M.J.; Hirsch, R.P.; Crumin, P.K.; David, R. Outcome in neonates with convulsions treated in ICU. Ann. Neurol. 1983, 14, 642–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Thoker, A.H.; Sheikh, M.; Thoker, P.A.; Thoker, M. Neurodevelopmental outcome in perinatal asyphxia. Am. J. Exp. Clin. Res. 2017, 4, 206–209. [Google Scholar]
  52. Li, A.M.; Chau, V.; Poskitt, K.J.; Sargent, M.A.; A Lupton, B.; Hill, A.; Roland, E.; Miller, S.P. White matter injury in term newborns with neonatal encephalopathy. Pediatr. Res. 2009, 65, 85–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Harteman, J.C.; Groenendaal, F.; Toet, M.C.; Benders, M.J.; Van Haastert, I.C.; Nievelstein, R.A.; Koopman-Esseboom, C.; De Vries, L.S. Diffusion-weighted imaging changes in cerebral watershed distribution following neonatal encephalopathy are not invariably associated with an adverse outcome. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2013, 55, 642–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Jeganathan, R.; Karalasingam, S.D.; Hussein, J.; Allotey, P.; Reidpath, D.D. Factors associated with recovery from 1 minute Apgar score < 4 in live, singleton, term births: An analysis of Malaysian National Obstetrics Registry data 2010–2012. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017, 17, 110. [Google Scholar]
  55. Glass, H.C.; Shellhaas, R.A.; Tsuchida, T.N.; Chang, T.; Wusthoff, C.J.; Chu, C.J.; Cilio, M.R.; Bonifacio, S.L.; Massey, S.L.; Abend, N.S.; et al. Seizures in preterm neonates: A multicenter observational cohort study. Pediatric Neurol. 2017, 72, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. D’Alton, M.E.; Hankins, G.D.V.; Berkowitz, R.L.; Bienstock, J.; Ghidini, A.; Goldsmith, J.; Higgins, R.; Moore, T.R.; Natale, R.; Nelson, K.B.; et al. Neonatal Encephalopathy and Neurologic Outcome, 2nd ed.; Report of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Task Force on Neonatal Encephalopathy, Pediatrics; American Academy of Pediatrics: Itasca, IL, USA, 2014; Volume 133, pp. e1482–e1488. [Google Scholar]
  57. Martinello, K.; Hart, A.R.; Yap, S.; Mitra, S.; Robertson, N.J. Management and investigation of neonatal encephalopathy: 2017 update. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal. Ed. 2017, 102, F346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Costea, R.; Neamtu, M.; Neamtu, B. Febrile seizures–EEG study and risks factors for recurrence and for epilepsy. Eur. J. Pediatr. 2016, 175, 1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Maniu, I.; Maniu, G.; Dospinescu, C.; Visa, G. A Factor Analysis Model for Dimension Reduction of Outcome Factors in Neonatal Seizure Context; BRAIN Broad Res. Artif. Intell. Neurosci. 2018, 9, 95–103. [Google Scholar]
  60. Maniu, I.; Maniu, G.; Visa, G.; Costea, R.; Neamtu, B. Frequent pattern mining of risk factors predicting neonatal seizures outcomes. BRAIN Broad Res. Artif. Intell. Neurosci. 2018, 9, 161–170. [Google Scholar]
  61. Maniu, I.; Maniu, G.; Balan, C.; Neamtu, B. Scoring systems for predicting outcomes of neonatal seizure. Acta Med. Transilv. 2017, 22, 48–50. [Google Scholar]
  62. Zhang, C.; Garrard, L.; Keighley, J.; Carlson, S.; Gajewski, B.J. Subgroup identification of early preterm birth (ePTB): Informing a future prospective enrichment clinical trial design. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017, 17, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Mehta, R.; Bahatt, N.; Ganatra, A. A survey on data mining technologies for decision support system of maternal care domain. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2016, 138, 975–8887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Vovsha, I.; Rajan, A.; Salleb-Aouissi, A.; Raja, A.; Radeva, A.; Diab, H.; Tomar, A.; Wapner, R. Predicting preterm birth is not elusive: Machine learning paves the way to individual wellness. AAAI Spring Symp. Tech. Rep. SS 2014, 14, 82–89. [Google Scholar]
  65. Ferreira, D.; Oliveira, A.; Freitas, A. Applying data mining techniques to improve diagnosis in neonatal jaundice. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2012, 12, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Mardikyan, S.; Aksoy, I.; Badur, B. Finding hidden patterns of hospital infections on newborn: A data mining approach. Istanb. Univ. J. School Bus. Adm. 2010, 39, 210–226. [Google Scholar]
  67. Costea, R.M.; Maniu, I.; Dobrota, L.; Neamtu, B. Stress hyperglycemia as predictive factor of recurrence in children with febrile seizures. Brain Sci. 2020, 10, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Sokhadze, E.; Sears, L.; El-Baz, A.; Tasman, A.; Casanova, M. Clinical Applications of Electrophysiological Approaches Based on Cortical Modularity. In Recent Advances on the Modular Organization of the Cortex; Casanova, M.F., Opris, I., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2015; Chapter 14; pp. 239–270. [Google Scholar]
  69. IBM SPSS Decision Trees 22. Available online: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/pdfs/SPSS_Decision_Trees_22.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2021).
  70. Maresova, P.; Hruska, J.; Klimova, B.; Barakovic, S.; Krejcar, O. Activities of daily living and associated costs in the most widespread neurodegenerative diseases: A systematic review. Clin. Interv. Aging. 2020, 15, 1841–1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sarstedt, M.; Mooi, E. Introduction to Market Research. In A Concise Guide to Market Research.Springer Texts in Business and Economics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Cheng, L.K.; Selamat, A.; Zabil, M.H.M.; Selamat, H.; Alias, R.A.; Puteh, F.; Mohamed, F.; Krejcar, O. Comparing the Accuracy of Hierarchical Agglomerative and K-Means Clustering on Mobile Augmented Reality Usability Metrics. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Conference on Big Data and Analytics (ICBDA), Pulau Pinang, Malaysia, 19–21 November 2019; pp. 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wilks, D.S. Chapter 15-cluster analysis. In Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences, 3rd ed.; International Geophysics, Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011; Volume 100, pp. 603–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 18 04807 g001 550
Figure 1. CART output illustrates a four-level decision tree (1–4). The cases partition is based on BW, AS1, AS5, ONS, SDM as prognostic factors related to abnormal outcomes (yes/no). The minimal change selection in impurity was 0.0001, whereas 5/3 were elected as minimal values for parent/child node. The hierarchy consisted of BW at level 1 and 2, SDM at level 2, AS1 and AS 5 at level 3, ONS at level 4.
Figure 1. CART output illustrates a four-level decision tree (1–4). The cases partition is based on BW, AS1, AS5, ONS, SDM as prognostic factors related to abnormal outcomes (yes/no). The minimal change selection in impurity was 0.0001, whereas 5/3 were elected as minimal values for parent/child node. The hierarchy consisted of BW at level 1 and 2, SDM at level 2, AS1 and AS 5 at level 3, ONS at level 4.
Ijerph 18 04807 g001
Ijerph 18 04807 g002 550
Figure 2. Cluster analysis for high-risk, intermediate and low-risk categories based on BW, GA, AS1, AS5, ONS, SDM. Median values for the predictors highlight the tendencies for each cluster. We recorded a fair silhouette measure of cohesion and separation for the three clusters (high, intermediate and low risk cases).
Figure 2. Cluster analysis for high-risk, intermediate and low-risk categories based on BW, GA, AS1, AS5, ONS, SDM. Median values for the predictors highlight the tendencies for each cluster. We recorded a fair silhouette measure of cohesion and separation for the three clusters (high, intermediate and low risk cases).
Ijerph 18 04807 g002
Table
Table 1. Cases distribution based on etiology and abnormal outcomes.
Table 1. Cases distribution based on etiology and abnormal outcomes.
CategoriesTotal (N/P) bOutcome (N/P)Abnormal Outcome Types a (N/P)
NormalAbnormalEpilepsyCognitive DelaysMotor DelaysHCEP
Patients188104 (55.3)84 (44.7)30 (16)51 (27.1)71 (37.8)24 (12.8)
Etiology
HIE133 (70.74)76 (57.14)57 (42.86)20 (15.04)34 (25.56)45 (33.83)16 (12.03)
HC11 (5.85)4 (36.36)7 (63.64)3 (27.27)7 (63.64)7 (63.64)1 (9.09)
INF13 (6.91)3 (23.08)10 (76.92)3 (23.08)4 (30.77)9 (69.23)5 (38.46)
MALF5 (2.66)0 (0.00)5 (100.00)2 (40)3 (60.00)5 (100)2 (40)
AVC c2 (1.06)0 (0.00)2 (100.00)2 (100)2 (100)2 (100)0 (0)
METAB22 (11.70)19 (86.36)3 (13.64)0 (0)1 (4.55)3 (13.64)0 (0)
DRUG2 (1.06)2 (100.00)0 (0.00)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Abbreviations—HIE, hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy; HC, cerebral hemorrhage; INF, infections; MALF, malformations; AVC, stroke; METAB, metabolic; HCEP, hydrocephaly; a—most of the cases had a composite abnormal outcome; b—N-total number/P-percentage; c—focal ischemia.
Table
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for GA, BW, AS1, AS5 variables in both normal and abnormal outcomes for the study group.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for GA, BW, AS1, AS5 variables in both normal and abnormal outcomes for the study group.
Variables (Number of Cases)TotalOutcomep-Value a
NormalAbnormal
M ± SD (95%CI); MIN, MAX, IQR (MEDIAN)
GA in weeks37.39 ± 4.16
(36.79–37.99)
26–44
36–40 (38)		38.29 ± 2.97
(37.71–38.87)
27–44
37–40 (39)		36.27 ± 5.05
(35.17–37.37)
26–43
33–40 (38)		p = 0.005 b
BW in grams2860.17 ± 772.94
(2748.96–2971.37)
900–4450
2.350–3.490 (2997.5)		3014.88 ± 636.92
(2891.00–3138.74)
900–4225
2.615–3.530 (3085)		2668.63 ± 880.62
(2477.52–2859.73)
900–4450
1992–3260 (2810)		p = 0.003
AS17.16 ± 2.317.55 ± 2.186.66 ± 2.37p = 0.005
(6.81–7.51)(7.11–7.99)(6.11–7.21)
1–101–101–10
6–9 (7)7–9 (8)6–9 (7)
AS57.99 ± 1.648.25 ± 1.407.68 ± 1.84p = 0.082
(7.67–8.30)(7.88–8.62)(7.15–8.20)
2–103–102–10
7–9 (8)8–9 (9)7–9 (8)
Abbreviations: M, mean; SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval, MIN, minimum, MAX, maximum; IQR, interquartile range; a—significance was assessed by Mann–Whitney test; b—significance was assessed by Student t-test.
Table
Table 3. Cases distribution based on seizure types in normal and abnormal outcomes.
Table 3. Cases distribution based on seizure types in normal and abnormal outcomes.
CategoriesTotal (N/P) aOutcome (N/P)Abnormal Outcome Types (N/P)
NormalAbnormalEpilepsyCognitive DelaysMotor DelaysHCEP
Seizures types
Subtle142 (75.53)85 (59.86)57 (40.14)17 (11.97)37 (26.06)50 (35.21)17 (11.97)
Clonic87 (46.28)42 (48.28)45 (51.72)19 (21.84)30 (34.48)35 (40.23)12 (13.79)
Tonic57 (30.32)28 (49.12)29 (50.88)13 (22.81)21 (36.84)24 (42.11)10 (17.54)
Myoclonic41 (21.81)21 (51.22)20 (48.78)11 (26.83)13 (31.71)18 (43.90)10 (24.39)
Generalized26 (13.83)12 (46.15)14 (53.85)9 (34.62)10 (38.46)10 (38.49)6 (23.08)
a-N-total number/P-percentage.
Table
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for ONS and SDM variables in both normal and abnormal outcomes for the study group.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for ONS and SDM variables in both normal and abnormal outcomes for the study group.
Variables (Number of Cases)TotalOutcomep-Value a
NormalAbnormal
M ± SD (95%CI); MIN, MAX, IQR (MEDIAN)
ONS in hours55.95 ± 81.0653.65 ± 83.0158.84 ± 78.98p = 0.467
(43.95–67.94)(37.08–70.20)(41.14–76.52)
1–5001–5001–400
23–72 (29)23–48 (28)21–72 (32)
SDM in hours12.90 ± 19.9811.38 ± 19.7615.2 ± 20.28p = 0.102
(9.37–16.42)(6.86–15.89)(9.43–20.96)
1–961–961–82
2–12 (3)2–10 (3)2–24 (4)
Abbreviations: M, mean; SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval; MIN, minimum; MAX, maximum; IQR, interquartile range; a—significance was assessed by Mann–Whitney test.
Table
Table 5. Distribution on etiology and outcomes based on risk group categories after CART and CLUSTER output analysis.
Table 5. Distribution on etiology and outcomes based on risk group categories after CART and CLUSTER output analysis.
HighIntermediateLow
N (PT/FT)N (PT/FT)N (PT/FT)
Etiology
HIE29 (13/16)70.73%35 (9/26)68.63%69 (18/51)71.88%
HC2 (2/0)4.88%5 (0/5)9.80%4 (0/4)4.17%
INF7 (7/0)17.07%2 (1/1)3.92%4 (1/3)4.17%
MALF0 (0/0)0.00%4 (0/4)7.84%1 (0/1)1.04%
AVC2 (0/2)4.88%0 (0/0)0.00%0 (0/0)0.00%
METAB1 (0/1)2.44%3 (0/3)5.88%18 (2/16)18.75%
DRUGS0 (0/0)0.00%2 (0/2)3.92%0 (0/0)0.00%
Outcome a
Epilepsy14 (5/9)34.15%11 (2/9)21.57%5 (1/4)5.21%
Cognitive delays23 (11/12)56.10%14 (2/12)27.45%14 (3/11)14.58%
Motor delays32 (19/13)78.05%23 (5/18)45.10%16 (4/12)16.67%
HCEP12 (8/4)29.27%9 (2/7)17.65%3 (1/2)3.12%
Abbreviations: N, total number; PT, preterm; FT, full-term; a—most of the cases had a composite abnormal outcome.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Neamțu, B.M.; Visa, G.; Maniu, I.; Ognean, M.L.; Pérez-Elvira, R.; Dragomir, A.; Agudo, M.; Șofariu, C.R.; Gheonea, M.; Pitic, A.; et al. A Decision-Tree Approach to Assist in Forecasting the Outcomes of the Neonatal Brain Injury. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4807. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18094807

AMA Style

Neamțu BM, Visa G, Maniu I, Ognean ML, Pérez-Elvira R, Dragomir A, Agudo M, Șofariu CR, Gheonea M, Pitic A, et al. A Decision-Tree Approach to Assist in Forecasting the Outcomes of the Neonatal Brain Injury. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(9):4807. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18094807

Chicago/Turabian Style

Neamțu, Bogdan Mihai, Gabriela Visa, Ionela Maniu, Maria Livia Ognean, Rubén Pérez-Elvira, Andrei Dragomir, Maria Agudo, Ciprian Radu Șofariu, Mihaela Gheonea, Antoniu Pitic, and et al. 2021. "A Decision-Tree Approach to Assist in Forecasting the Outcomes of the Neonatal Brain Injury" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 9: 4807. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18094807

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop