ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
Prediction of Mortality after Burn Surgery in Critically Ill Burn Patients Using Machine Learning Models.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Red blood cell distribution width at admission and the short-term mortality of patients with severe burn injury: a meta-analysis.European journal of medical research · 2024Pooled it
- Association of inflammatory biomarkers with overall survival in burn patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Prediction of death in burn patients infected with antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus using machine learning based techniques.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Simultaneous prediction of early and delayed mortality in burn patients: a comparative machine learning analysis of feature importance in a single-center retrospective study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Review
- Feasibility of using red cell distribution width for prediction of postoperative mortality in severe burn patients: an association with acute kidney injury after surgery.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2023Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Severe burns may lead to a series of pathophysiological processes that result in death. Machine learning models that demonstrate prognostic performance can be used to build analytical models to predict postoperative mortality. This study aimed to identify machine learning models with the best diagnostic performance for predicting mortality in critically ill burn patients after burn surgery, and then compare them. Clinically important features for predicting mortality in patients after burn surgery were selected using a random forest (RF) regressor. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and classifier accuracy were evaluated to compare the predictive accuracy of different machine learning algorithms, including RF, adaptive boosting, decision tree, linear support vector machine, and logistic regression. A total of 731 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The 90-day mortality of the critically ill burn patients after burn surgery was 27.1% (198/731). RF showed the highest AUC (0.922, 95% confidence interval = 0.902-0.942) among the models, with sensitivity and specificity of 66.2% and 93.8%, respectively. The most significant predictors for mortality after burn surgery as per machine learning models were total body surface area burned, red cell distribution width, and age. The RF algorithm showed the best performance for predicting mortality.
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.