Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34943479›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Predicting Prolonged Length of ICU Stay through Machine Learning.

Jingyi Wu, Yu Lin, Pengfei Li, Yonghua Hu, Luxia Zhang, Guilan Kong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Machine Learning for Intensive Care Unit Length-of-Stay Prediction: A Simulation-Based Approach to Bed Capacity Management.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Machine Learning for Benchmarking Critical Care Outcomes.Healthcare informatics research · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors.

Jingyi WuNational Institute of Health Data Science, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3519-3952
Yu LinDepartment of Medicine and Therapeutics, LKS Institute of Health Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4720-6260
Pengfei LiAdvanced Institute of Information Technology, Peking University, Hangzhou 311215, China.
Yonghua HuDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China.
Luxia ZhangNational Institute of Health Data Science, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China.
Guilan KongNational Institute of Health Data Science, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China.

Funding

Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission 7212201National Natural Science Foundation of China 81771938National Natural Science Foundation of China 91846101PKU-Baidu Fund 2019BD017PKU-Baidu Fund 2020BD005The National Key Research and Development Program of China 2018AAA0102100University of Michigan Health System-Peking University Health Science Center Joint Institute for Translational and Clinical Research BMU2020JI011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to construct machine learning (ML) models for predicting prolonged length of stay (pLOS) in intensive care units (ICU) among general ICU patients. A multicenter database called eICU (Collaborative Research Database) was used for model derivation and internal validation, and the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC) III database was used for external validation. We used four different ML methods (random forest, support vector machine, deep learning, and gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT)) to develop prediction models. The prediction performance of the four models were compared with the customized simplified acute physiology score (SAPS) II. The area under the receiver operation characteristic curve (AUROC), area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), estimated calibration index (ECI), and Brier score were used to measure performance. In internal validation, the GBDT model achieved the best overall performance (Brier score, 0.164), discrimination (AUROC, 0.742; AUPRC, 0.537), and calibration (ECI, 8.224). In external validation, the GBDT model also achieved the best overall performance (Brier score, 0.166), discrimination (AUROC, 0.747; AUPRC, 0.536), and calibration (ECI, 8.294). External validation showed that the calibration curve of the GBDT model was an optimal fit, and four ML models outperformed the customized SAPS II model. The GBDT-based pLOS-ICU prediction model had the best prediction performance among the five models on both internal and external datasets. Furthermore, it has the potential to assist ICU physicians to identify patients with pLOS-ICU risk and provide appropriate clinical interventions to improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

clinical decision rulesmachine learningmedical informaticsprolonged length of ICU stay

Identifiers

PMID34943479
PMCPMC8700580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.