Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35505048›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Mortality prediction of patients in intensive care units using machine learning algorithms based on electronic health records.

Min Hyuk Choi, Dokyun Kim, Eui Jun Choi, Yeo Jin Jung, Yong Jun Choi, Jae Hwa Cho, Seok Hoon Jeong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Analyzing Information Disparities across Modalities in Mortality Prediction.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Fast and interpretable mortality risk scores for critical care patients.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Min Hyuk ChoiDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Research Institute of Bacterial Resistance, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 211 Eonju-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06273, South Korea.
Dokyun KimDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Research Institute of Bacterial Resistance, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 211 Eonju-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06273, South Korea.
Eui Jun ChoiDepartment of Statistics and Data Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.
Yeo Jin JungDepartment of Statistics and Data Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.
Yong Jun ChoiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Jae Hwa ChoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Seok Hoon JeongDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Research Institute of Bacterial Resistance, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 211 Eonju-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06273, South Korea. kscpjsh@yuhs.ac.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Improving predictive models for intensive care unit (ICU) inpatients requires a new strategy that periodically includes the latest clinical data and can be updated to reflect local characteristics. We extracted data from all adult patients admitted to the ICUs of two university hospitals with different characteristics from 2006 to 2020, and a total of 85,146 patients were included in this study. Machine learning algorithms were trained to predict in-hospital mortality. The predictive performance of conventional scoring models and machine learning algorithms was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). The conventional scoring models had various predictive powers, with the SAPS III (AUROC 0.773 [0.766-0.779] for hospital S) and APACHE III (AUROC 0.803 [0.795-0.810] for hospital G) showing the highest AUROC among them. The best performing machine learning models achieved an AUROC of 0.977 (0.973-0.980) in hospital S and 0.955 (0.950-0.961) in hospital G. The use of ML models in conjunction with conventional scoring systems can provide more useful information for predicting the prognosis of critically ill patients. In this study, we suggest that the predictive model can be made more robust by training with the individual data of each hospital.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsIntensive Care UnitsAdultAlgorithmsAPACHEHumansMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID35505048
PMCPMC9065110

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.