Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33328078›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Digital health2020

Dynamic and explainable machine learning prediction of mortality in patients in the intensive care unit: a retrospective study of high-frequency data in electronic patient records.

Hans-Christian Thorsen-Meyer, Annelaura B Nielsen, Anna P Nielsen, Benjamin Skov Kaas-Hansen, Palle Toft, Jens Schierbeck, Thomas Strøm, Piotr J Chmura, Marc Heimann, Lars Dybdahl and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Digital health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 168 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
168citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

168 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. From Integrated Care to Learning Systems.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

108 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Hans-Christian Thorsen-MeyerNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Intensive Care, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Annelaura B NielsenNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anna P NielsenNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Benjamin Skov Kaas-HansenNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark.
Palle ToftDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Jens SchierbeckDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Thomas StrømDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Piotr J ChmuraNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Marc HeimannCentre for IT, Medical Technology and Telephony Services, Capital Region of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lars DybdahlDaintel, Lyngby, Denmark.
Lasse SpangsegeDaintel, Lyngby, Denmark.
Patrick HulsenDaintel, Lyngby, Denmark.
Kirstine BellingNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Søren BrunakNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: soren.brunak@cpr.ku.dk.
Anders PernerDepartment of Intensive Care, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany mortality prediction models have been developed for patients in intensive care units (ICUs); most are based on data available at ICU admission. We investigated whether machine learning methods using analyses of time-series data improved mortality prognostication for patients in the ICU by providing real-time predictions of 90-day mortality. In addition, we examined to what extent such a dynamic model could be made interpretable by quantifying and visualising the features that drive the predictions at different timepoints.

methodsBased on the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) III variables, we trained a machine learning model on longitudinal data from patients admitted to four ICUs in the Capital Region, Denmark, between 2011 and 2016. We included all patients older than 16 years of age, with an ICU stay lasting more than 1 h, and who had a Danish civil registration number to enable 90-day follow-up. We leveraged static data and physiological time-series data from electronic health records and the Danish National Patient Registry. A recurrent neural network was trained with a temporal resolution of 1 h. The model was internally validated using the holdout method with 20% of the training dataset and externally validated using previously unseen data from a fifth hospital in Denmark. Its performance was assessed with the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) as metrics, using bootstrapping with 1000 samples with replacement to construct 95% CIs. A Shapley additive explanations algorithm was applied to the prediction model to obtain explanations of the features that drive patient-specific predictions, and the contributions of each of the 44 features in the model were analysed and compared with the variables in the original SAPS III model.

findingsFrom a dataset containing 15 615 ICU admissions of 12 616 patients, we included 14 190 admissions of 11 492 patients in our analysis. Overall, 90-day mortality was 33·1% (3802 patients). The deep learning model showed a predictive performance on the holdout testing dataset that improved over the timecourse of an ICU stay: MCC 0·29 (95% CI 0·25-0·33) and AUROC 0·73 (0·71-0·74) at admission, 0·43 (0·40-0·47) and 0·82 (0·80-0·84) after 24 h, 0·50 (0·46-0·53) and 0·85 (0·84-0·87) after 72 h, and 0·57 (0·54-0·60) and 0·88 (0·87-0·89) at the time of discharge. The model exhibited good calibration properties. These results were validated in an external validation cohort of 5827 patients with 6748 admissions: MCC 0·29 (95% CI 0·27-0·32) and AUROC 0·75 (0·73-0·76) at admission, 0·41 (0·39-0·44) and 0·80 (0·79-0·81) after 24 h, 0·46 (0·43-0·48) and 0·82 (0·81-0·83) after 72 h, and 0·47 (0·44-0·49) and 0·83 (0·82-0·84) at the time of discharge.

interpretationThe prediction of 90-day mortality improved with 1-h sampling intervals during the ICU stay. The dynamic risk prediction can also be explained for an individual patient, visualising the features contributing to the prediction at any point in time. This explanation allows the clinician to determine whether there are elements in the current patient state and care that are potentially actionable, thus making the model suitable for further validation as a clinical tool.

fundingNovo Nordisk Foundation and the Innovation Fund Denmark.

Indexed as

Data AnalysisElectronic Health RecordsHospitalizationHospital MortalityIntensive Care UnitsMachine LearningModels, BiologicalAgedAlgorithmsArea Under CurveCohort StudiesCritical IllnessFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.