| Literature DB >> 33614984 |
Wisdom Kwami Takramah1,2, Justice Moses K Aheto2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the priorities and important current problem in public health research globally is modeling of neonatal mortality and its risk factors in using the appropriate statistical methods. It is believed that multiple risk factors interplay to increase the risk of neonatal mortality. To understand the risk factors of neonatal mortality in Ghana, the current study carefully evaluated and compared the predictive accuracy and performance of two classification models.Entities:
Keywords: Ghana; neonatal mortality; risk factors; under‐five mortality; unweighted penalized multivariable logistic regression; weighted multivariable logistic regression
Year: 2021 PMID: 33614984 PMCID: PMC7883380 DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.248
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Sci Rep ISSN: 2398-8835
Weighted percentage distribution of neonatal mortality by risk factors selected for births within 5 years preceding the 2014 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey (0‐59 months)
| Neonatal death | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weighted frequency | Dead | Alive | Total | |||||
|
| (%) |
| (%) |
| % |
| % | |
| Characteristics | 159.6 | 2.8 | 5535.30 | 97.2 | 5694.90 | 100 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Sex of child | ||||||||
| Male | 2970 | 52.2 | 88.8 | 3.0 | 2881.0 | 97.0 | 2970.0 | 100 |
| Female | 2725 | 47.8 | 70.8 | 2.6 | 2654.0 | 97.4 | 2725.0 | 100 |
| Size of child | ||||||||
| Average/large | 4799 | 84.3 | 116.6 | 2.4 | 4682.0 | 97.6 | 4799.0 | 100 |
| Small | 895.5 | 15.7 | 43.0 | 4.8 | 852.5 | 95.2 | 895.5 | 100 |
| Low birth weight | ||||||||
| No | 3107 | 90.5 | 21.1 | 0.7 | 3085.0 | 99.3 | 3107.0 | 100 |
| Yes | 327.6 | 6.1 | 9.2 | 2.8 | 318.4 | 97.2 | 327.6 | 100 |
| Type of birth | ||||||||
| Single birth | 5403 | 94.9 | 130.0 | 2.4 | 5273.0 | 97.6 | 5403.0 | 100 |
| Multiple birth | 291.8 | 5.1 | 29.6 | 10.1 | 262.2 | 89.9 | 291.8 | 100 |
|
| ||||||||
| Birth interval | ||||||||
| <24 months | 561.5 | 13.0 | 27.5 | 4.9 | 534.0 | 95.1 | 561.5 | 100 |
| 24‐47 | 2203 | 51.1 | 72.6 | 3.3 | 2130.0 | 96.7 | 2203.0 | 100 |
| 48+ months | 1544 | 35.8 | 20.4 | 1.3 | 1524.0 | 98.7 | 1544.0 | 100 |
| Covered by health insurance | ||||||||
| No | 1847 | 32.4 | 32.8 | 1.8 | 1815.0 | 98.2 | 1847.0 | 100 |
| Yes | 3847 | 67.6 | 126.8 | 3.3 | 3721.0 | 96.7 | 3847.0 | 100 |
| Ever terminated pregnancy | ||||||||
| No | 4235 | 74.4 | 116.2 | 2.7 | 4118.0 | 97.3 | 4235.0 | 100 |
| Yes | 1460 | 25.6 | 43.4 | 3.0 | 1417.0 | 97.0 | 1460.0 | 100 |
| Mode of delivery | ||||||||
| No caesarean section | 4966 | 87.2 | 124.3 | 2.5 | 4842.0 | 97.5 | 4966.0 | 100 |
| Caesarean section | 728.7 | 12.8 | 35.3 | 4.9 | 693.3 | 95.1 | 728.7 | 100 |
| Children ever born | ||||||||
| 1 | 944 | 16.6 | 16.3 | 1.7 | 927.6 | 98.3 | 944.0 | 100 |
| 2 | 1213 | 21.3 | 24.6 | 2.0 | 1188.0 | 98.0 | 1213.0 | 100 |
| 3 | 1108 | 19.5 | 28.0 | 2.5 | 1080.0 | 97.5 | 1108.0 | 100 |
| 4 | 827.2 | 14.5 | 28.6 | 3.5 | 798.6 | 96.5 | 827.2 | 100 |
| 5+ | 1603 | 28.1 | 62.0 | 3.9 | 1541.0 | 96.1 | 1603.0 | 100 |
| Prenatal care by | ||||||||
| Non‐skilled worker | 1664 | 29.2 | 101.8 | 6.1 | 1562.0 | 93.9 | 1664.0 | 100 |
| Skilled worker | 4031 | 70.8 | 57.8 | 1.4 | 3973.0 | 98.6 | 4031.0 | 100 |
|
| ||||||||
| Maternal marital status | ||||||||
| Single | 436.6 | 7.7 | 11.1 | 2.6 | 425.5 | 97.4 | 436.6 | 100 |
| Currently married | 4879 | 85.7 | 141.2 | 2.9 | 4738.0 | 97.1 | 4879.0 | 100 |
| Formally married | 379.4 | 6.7 | 7.3 | 1.9 | 372.2 | 98.1 | 379.4 | 100 |
| Maternal age | ||||||||
| 15‐24 | 1175 | 20.6 | 29.0 | 2.5 | 1146.0 | 97.5 | 1175.0 | 100 |
| 25‐34 | 2839 | 49.9 | 70.4 | 2.5 | 2768.0 | 97.5 | 2839.0 | 100 |
| 35‐49 | 1681 | 29.5 | 60.2 | 3.6 | 1621.0 | 96.4 | 1681.0 | 100 |
| Household Wealth Index | ||||||||
| Poor | 2459 | 43.2 | 69.3 | 2.8 | 2390.0 | 97.2 | 2459.0 | 100 |
| Medium | 1114 | 19.6 | 25.8 | 2.3 | 1088.0 | 97.7 | 1114.0 | 100 |
| Rich | 2122 | 37.3 | 64.5 | 3.0 | 2057.0 | 97.0 | 2122.0 | 100 |
| Maternal highest level of education | ||||||||
| No education | 1561 | 27.4 | 39.2 | 2.5 | 1522.0 | 97.5 | 1561.0 | 100 |
| Primary education | 1141 | 20.0 | 36.8 | 3.2 | 1104.0 | 96.8 | 1141.0 | 100 |
| Secondary Education | 2739 | 48.1 | 80.1 | 2.9 | 2659.0 | 97.1 | 2739.0 | 100 |
| Higher education | 253.9 | 4.5 | 3.4 | 1.4 | 250.5 | 98.6 | 253.9 | 100 |
| Maternal occupation | ||||||||
| Employed | 4679 | 82.4 | 135.9 | 2.9 | 4543.0 | 97.1 | 4679.0 | 100 |
| Unemployed | 1002 | 17.6 | 23.4 | 2.3 | 978.5 | 97.7 | 1002.0 | 100 |
| Household size | ||||||||
| 1‐4 members | 2118 | 37.2 | 73.1 | 3.4 | 2045.0 | 96.6 | 2118.0 | 100 |
| 5‐7 members | 2634 | 46.3 | 60.3 | 2.3 | 2574.0 | 97.7 | 2634.0 | 100 |
| 8+ members | 943.1 | 16.6 | 26.2 | 2.8 | 916.9 | 97.2 | 943.1 | 100 |
| Maternal religion | ||||||||
| No religion | 238.6 | 4.2 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 236.6 | 99.2 | 238.6 | 100 |
| Christian | 4303 | 75.6 | 129.6 | 3.0 | 4174.0 | 97.0 | 4303.0 | 100 |
| Islam | 969.8 | 17.0 | 26.8 | 2.8 | 943.0 | 97.2 | 969.8 | 100 |
| Traditional | 183.4 | 3.2 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 182.2 | 99.4 | 183.4 | 100 |
Optimal models for variable selection
| No. of predictors | Optimal models | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| LL | AIC | BIC | |
| 1 | −504.85 | 1013.70 | 1026.53 |
| 2 | −491.53 | 989.06 | 1008.31 |
| 3 | −476.58 | 961.16 | 986.82 |
| 4 | −465.00 | 940.00 | 972.07 |
| 5 | −459.52 | 931.05 | 969.54 |
| 6 | −454.15 | 922.29 |
|
| 7 | −451.54 | 919.08 | 970.41 |
| 8 | −450.13 |
| 975.99 |
| 9 | −449.33 | 918.65 | 982.80 |
| 10 | −448.71 | 919.43 | 989.99 |
| 11 | −448.23 | 920.45 | 997.43 |
| 12 | −448.08 | 922.16 | 1005.56 |
| 13 | −448.03 | 924.05 | 1013.86 |
| 14 | −447.98 | 925.95 | 1022.18 |
Note: Bold values are the lower AIC and BIC values that indicate better fit. This means that the optimal model with 8 predictors was favored by AIC because the lowest AIC score was 918.25. Also the optimal model with 6 predictors was selected by the lowest BIC (967.20) value.
Abbreviations: AIC, Akaike's Information Criterion; BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion; LL, Log‐likelihood.
Area under operating characteristic curve (AUC‐ROC), calibration plot ad Hosmer‐Lemeshow goodness of fit test for comparing training and validation set
| Data set |
| ROC | Calibration belt (plot) | Goodness of fit | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test statistics |
| H‐L (F) |
| |||
| Training data | 3605 | 0.794 | 1.72 | .190 | 1.41 | .181 |
| Validation data | 909 | 0.823 | 2.41 | .120 | 1570.48 | <.0001 |
Abbreviation: H‐L, Hosmer‐Lemeshow test.
FIGURE 1Area under the ROC curve comparing the predictive accuracy of training and validation set
FIGURE 2Calibration plot for training and validation test
Model comparison between the unweighted penalized and weighted single‐level multivariable logistic regression model
| Model | Model 1 | Model 2 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4514 | 4514 | 0 |
| Log‐likelihood intercept only | −543.43 | −517.34 | 26.09 |
| Log‐likelihood full model | −452.40 | −419.98 | 32.42 |
| McFadden's | 0.17 | 0.19 | 0.02 |
| McFadden's Adj | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.02 |
| Cragg and Uhler's | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.03 |
| McKelvey and Zavoina's | 0.27 | 0.33 | 0.06 |
| AIC | 940.80 | 0.19 | −940.61 |
| BIC | 1056.319 | −36 993.60 | −38 049.92 |
Note: Model 1 = unweighted penalized single‐level multivariable logistic model, Model 2 = weighted single‐level multivariable logistic model.
Unweighted penalized and weighted single‐level multivariable logistic regression models for predicting the odds of neonate dying within 28 days of life
| Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 |
|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
|
| ||
| Size of child | ||
| Large | 1.00 (Reference) | 1.00 (Reference) |
| Small | 1.42 (0.90, 2.23) | 1.64 (0.83, 3.24) |
| Type of birth | ||
| Single births | 1.00 (Reference) | 1.00 (Reference) |
| Multiple births | 3.10 (1.89, 15.27) | 1.65 (0.67, 4.05) |
|
| ||
| Birth interval | ||
| <24 months | 2.45 (1.36, 4.42) | 3.73 (1.75, 7.00) |
| 24‐47 | 1.99 (1.24, 3.20) | 2.93 (1.61, 5.34) |
| 48+ month | 1.00 (Reference) | 1.00 (Reference) |
| Covered by health insurance | ||
| No | 1.00 (Reference) | 1.00 (Reference) |
| Yes | 1.85 (1.18, 2.89) | 2.60 (1.45, 4.69) |
| Parity | 1.33 (1.21, 1.46) | 1.36 (1.21, 1.53) |
| Mode of delivery | ||
| No caesarean section | 1.00 (Reference) | 1.00 (Reference) |
| Caesarean section | 2.24 (1.30, 3.85) | 2.84 (1.24, 6.54) |
| Prenatal care by | ||
| Skilled worker | 1.00 (Reference) | 1.00 (Reference) |
| Non‐skilled worker | 3.79 (2.52, 5.72) | 4.56 (2.44, 8.52) |
|
| ||
| Household size | ||
| 5‐7 members | 1.47 (0.86, 2.50) | 1.57 (0.78, 3.18) |
| 1‐4 members | 5.74 (3.16, 10.43) | 6.47 (2.84, 14.70) |
| 8+ members | 1.00 (Reference) | 1.00 (Reference) |
Note: Model 1 = unweighted penalized single‐level multivariable logistic model, Model 2 = weighted single‐level multivariable logistic model.
Models evaluation using area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves
| Model |
| ROC (AUC) | SE | 95% CI | Chi‐square |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | 4514 | 0.818 | 0.021 | 0.778 | 0.858 | 6.10 | .014 |
| Model 2 | 4514 | 0.804 | 0.021 | 0.762 | 0.845 |
Note: Model 1 = unweighted penalized single‐level multivariable logistic model, Model 2 = weighted single‐level multivariable logistic model.
FIGURE 3Area under the ROC curve comparing the predictive accuracy of unweighted penalized and weighted single‐level multivariable logistic regression model
Diagnostic metric for model validation
| Diagnostic metrics | Model 1 | Model 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 81.22 | 81.77 |
| Specificity | 50.30 | 50.45 |
| False positive | 49.70 | 49.55 |
| False negative | 18.78 | 18.23 |
Note: Model 1 = unweighted penalized single‐level multivariable logistic model, Model 2 = weighted single‐level multivariable logistic model.