Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35943767›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

Predicting Mortality in Intensive Care Unit Patients With Heart Failure Using an Interpretable Machine Learning Model: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Jili Li, Siru Liu, Yundi Hu, Lingfeng Zhu, Yujia Mao, Jialin Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 136 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
136citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

136 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

76 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.

Jili Li *West China School of Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7051-0503
Siru Liu *Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5003-5354
Yundi HuSchool of Data Science, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1166-2803
Lingfeng ZhuDepartment of Computer Science, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5579-7668
Yujia MaoWest China School of Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID 0000-0003-0756-627X
Jialin LiuDepartment of Medical Informatics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID 0000-0002-1369-4625

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHeart failure (HF) is a common disease and a major public health problem. HF mortality prediction is critical for developing individualized prevention and treatment plans. However, due to their lack of interpretability, most HF mortality prediction models have not yet reached clinical practice.

objectiveWe aimed to develop an interpretable model to predict the mortality risk for patients with HF in intensive care units (ICUs) and used the SHapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) method to explain the extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) model and explore prognostic factors for HF.

methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we achieved model development and performance comparison on the eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD). We extracted data during the first 24 hours of each ICU admission, and the data set was randomly divided, with 70% used for model training and 30% used for model validation. The prediction performance of the XGBoost model was compared with three other machine learning models by the area under the curve. We used the SHAP method to explain the XGBoost model.

resultsA total of 2798 eligible patients with HF were included in the final cohort for this study. The observed in-hospital mortality of patients with HF was 9.97%. Comparatively, the XGBoost model had the highest predictive performance among four models with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.824 (95% CI 0.7766-0.8708), whereas support vector machine had the poorest generalization ability (AUC=0.701, 95% CI 0.6433-0.7582). The decision curve showed that the net benefit of the XGBoost model surpassed those of other machine learning models at 10%~28% threshold probabilities. The SHAP method reveals the top 20 predictors of HF according to the importance ranking, and the average of the blood urea nitrogen was recognized as the most important predictor variable.

conclusionsThe interpretable predictive model helps physicians more accurately predict the mortality risk in ICU patients with HF, and therefore, provides better treatment plans and optimal resource allocation for their patients. In addition, the interpretable framework can increase the transparency of the model and facilitate understanding the reliability of the predictive model for the physicians.

Indexed as

Heart FailureMachine LearningCohort StudiesHumansIntensive Care UnitsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective Studiesheart failureintensive care unitmortalitypredictionSHAPSHapley Additive exPlanationXGBoost

Identifiers

PMID35943767
PMCPMC9399880

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.