Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34301649›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Prediction model of in-hospital mortality in intensive care unit patients with heart failure: machine learning-based, retrospective analysis of the MIMIC-III database.

Fuhai Li, Hui Xin, Jidong Zhang, Mingqiang Fu, Jingmin Zhou, Zhexun Lian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

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

6 authors.

Fuhai LiDepartment of Cardiology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Hui XinDepartment of Cardiology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Jidong ZhangDepartment of Cardiology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Mingqiang FuDepartment of Cardiology, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Jingmin ZhouDepartment of Cardiology, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China zhoujinminzsyy@163.com lianzx566@163.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5010-0486
Zhexun LianDepartment of Cardiology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China zhoujinminzsyy@163.com lianzx566@163.com.ORCID 0000-0002-9360-7332

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe predictors of in-hospital mortality for intensive care units (ICUs)-admitted heart failure (HF) patients remain poorly characterised. We aimed to develop and validate a prediction model for all-cause in-hospital mortality among ICU-admitted HF patients.

designA retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND

participantsData were extracted from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-III) database. Data on 1177 heart failure patients were analysed.

methodsPatients meeting the inclusion criteria were identified from the MIMIC-III database and randomly divided into derivation (n=825, 70%) and a validation (n=352, 30%) group. Independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality were screened using the extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression models in the derivation sample. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to build prediction models in derivation group, and then validated in validation cohort. Discrimination, calibration and clinical usefulness of the predicting model were assessed using the C-index, calibration plot and decision curve analysis. After pairwise comparison, the best performing model was chosen to build a nomogram according to the regression coefficients.

resultsAmong the 1177 admissions, in-hospital mortality was 13.52%. In both groups, the XGBoost, LASSO regression and Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) risk score models showed acceptable discrimination. The XGBoost and LASSO regression models also showed good calibration. In pairwise comparison, the prediction effectiveness was higher with the XGBoost and LASSO regression models than with the GWTG-HF risk score model (p<0.05). The XGBoost model was chosen as our final model for its more concise and wider net benefit threshold probability range and was presented as the nomogram.

conclusionsOur nomogram enabled good prediction of in-hospital mortality in ICU-admitted HF patients, which may help clinical decision-making for such patients.

Indexed as

Critical CareHeart FailureHospital MortalityHumansIntensive Care UnitsMachine LearningRetrospective Studiesadult intensive & critical careclinical auditheart failureintensive & critical care

Identifiers

PMID34301649
PMCPMC8311359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.