Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34145862›Full record

ArticleBeijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences2021

[Prediction of intensive care unit readmission for critically ill patients based on ensemble learning].

Y Lin, J Y Wu, K Lin, Y H Hu, G L Kong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Y LinNational Institute of Health Data Science, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China.
J Y WuAdvanced Institute of Information Technology, Peking University, Hangzhou 311215, China.
K LinNational Institute of Health Data Science, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China.
Y H HuDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Peking University School of Public Health, Beijing 100191, China.
G L KongNational Institute of Health Data Science, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop machine learning models for predicting intensive care unit (ICU) readmission using ensemble learning algorithms.

methodsA publicly accessible American ICU database, medical information mart for intensive care (MIMIC)-Ⅲ as the data source was used, and the patients were selected by the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A set of variables that had the predictive ability of outcome including demographics, vital signs, laboratory tests, and comorbidities of patients were extracted from the dataset. We built the ICU readmission prediction models based on ensemble learning methods including random forest, adaptive boosting (AdaBoost), and gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT), and compared the prediction performance of the machine learning models with a conventional Logistic regression model. Five-fold cross validation was used to train and validate the prediction models. Average sensitivity, positive prediction value, negative prediction value, false positive rate, false negative rate, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and Brier score were used as performance measures. After constructing the prediction models, top 10 predictive variables based on importance ranking were identified by the model with the best discrimination.

resultsAmong these ICU readmission prediction models, GBDT (AUROC=0.858) had better performance than random forest (AUROC=0.827), and was slightly superior to AdaBoost (AUROC=0.851) in terms of AUROC. Compared with Logistic regression (AUROC=0.810), the discrimination of the three ensemble learning models was much better. The feature importance provided by GBDT showed that the top ranking variables included vital signs and laboratory tests. The patients with ICU readmission had higher mean arterial pressure, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate than the patients without ICU readmission. Meanwhile, the patients readmitted to ICU experienced lower urine output and higher serum creatinine. Overall, the patients having repeated admissions during their hospitalization showed worse heart function and renal function compared with the patients without ICU readmission.

conclusionThe ensemble learning based ICU readmission prediction models had better performance than Logistic regression model. Such ensemble learning models have the potential to aid ICU physicians in identifying those patients with high risk of ICU readmission and thus help improve overall clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessPatient ReadmissionHumansIntensive Care UnitsMachine LearningROC CurveIntensive care unitsMachine learningPatient readmissionPredictive value of tests

Identifiers

PMID34145862
PMCPMC8220041

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.