ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2022
A Novel Composite Indicator of Predicting Mortality Risk for Heart Failure Patients With Diabetes Admitted to Intensive Care Unit Based on Machine Learning.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Predictive Value of Machine Learning for the Risk of In-Hospital Death in Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical cardiology · 2025Pooled it
- Interpretable machine learning for prognostic prediction in critically ill patients with coronary artery disease: a multicenter study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Logistic Regression and Machine Learning Algorithms for the Risk Prediction of Perioperative Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Elderly Patients.Aging medicine (Milton (N.S.W)) · 2025Article
- Machine learning for risk prediction of acute kidney injury in patients with diabetes mellitus combined with heart failure during hospitalization.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The predictive value of SOFA and APSIII scores for 28-day mortality risk in SIMI: a cohort study based on the MIMIC-IV database.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Predicting Successful Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation by Reduction in Positive End-expiratory Pressure Level Using Machine Learning.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Association between Red Blood Cell Distribution Width and In-Hospital Mortality among Congestive Heart Failure Patients with Diabetes among Patients in the Intensive Care Unit: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Critical care research and practice · 2024Article
- Predicting 1-year mortality of patients with diabetes mellitus in Kazakhstan based on administrative health data using machine learning.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Prediction of 30-day mortality in heart failure patients with hypoxic hepatitis: Development and external validation of an interpretable machine learning model.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) with diabetes may face a poorer prognosis and higher mortality than patients with either disease alone, especially for those in intensive care unit. So far, there is no precise mortality risk prediction indicator for this kind of patient. Method: Two high-quality critically ill databases, the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) database and the Telehealth Intensive Care Unit (eICU) Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) Collaborative Research Database, were used for study participants' screening as well as internal and external validation. Nine machine learning models were compared, and the best one was selected to define indicators associated with hospital mortality for patients with HF with diabetes. Existing attributes most related to hospital mortality were identified using a visualization method developed for machine learning, namely, Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) method. A new composite indicator ASL was established using logistics regression for patients with HF with diabetes based on major existing indicators. Then, the new index was compared with existing indicators to confirm its discrimination ability and clinical value using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, decision curve, and calibration curve. Results: The random forest model outperformed among nine models with the area under the ROC curve (AUC) = 0.92 after hyper-parameter optimization. By using this model, the top 20 attributes associated with hospital mortality in these patients were identified among all the attributes based on SHAP method. Acute Physiology Score (APS) III, Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), and Max lactate were selected as major attributes related to mortality risk, and a new composite indicator was developed by combining these three indicators, which was named as ASL. Both in the initial and external cohort, the new indicator, ASL, had greater risk discrimination ability with AUC higher than 0.80 in both low- and high-risk groups compared with existing attributes. The decision curve and calibration curve indicated that this indicator also had a respectable clinical value compared with APS III and SOFA. In addition, this indicator had a good risk stratification ability when the patients were divided into three risk levels. Conclusion: A new composite indicator for predicting mortality risk in patients with HF with diabetes admitted to intensive care unit was developed on the basis of attributes identified by the random forest model. Compared with existing attributes such as APS III and SOFA, the new indicator had better discrimination ability and clinical value, which had potential value in reducing the mortality risk of these patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.