ArticleJournal of gastroenterology and hepatology2023
Predicting inpatient mortality in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A machine learning approach.
Article in Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Impact of venous thromboembolism on mortality in hospitalized patients with inflammatory bowel disease: analysis of the MIMIC-IV database, 2008 to 2022.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Surgery: A Systematic Review of Use and Validation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Predicting inpatient mortality in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A machine learning approach.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimData are lacking on predicting inpatient mortality (IM) in patients admitted for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). IM is a critical outcome; however, difficulty in its prediction exists due to infrequent occurrence. We assessed IM predictors and developed a predictive model for IM using machine-learning (ML).
methodsUsing the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (2005-2017), we extracted adults admitted for IBD. After ML-guided predictor selection, we trained and internally validated multiple algorithms, targeting minimum sensitivity and positive likelihood ratio (+LR) ≥ 80% and ≥ 3, respectively. Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) compared algorithm performance. The best performing algorithm was additionally trained and validated for an IBD-related surgery sub-cohort. External validation was done using NIS 2018.
resultsIn 398 426 adult IBD admissions, IM was 0.32% overall, and 0.87% among the surgical cohort (n = 40 784). Increasing age, ulcerative colitis, IBD-related surgery, pneumonia, chronic lung disease, acute kidney injury, malnutrition, frailty, heart failure, blood transfusion, sepsis/septic shock and thromboembolism were associated with increased IM. The QLattice algorithm, provided the highest performance model (+LR: 3.2, 95% CI 3.0-3.3; area-under-curve [AUC]:0.87, 85% sensitivity, 73% specificity), distinguishing IM patients by 15.6-fold when comparing high to low-risk patients. The surgical cohort model (+LR: 8.5, AUC: 0.94, 85% sensitivity, 90% specificity), distinguished IM patients by 49-fold. Both models performed excellently in external validation. An online calculator (https://clinicalc.ai/im-ibd/) was developed allowing bedside model predictions.
conclusionsAn online prediction-model calculator captured > 80% IM cases during IBD-related admissions, with high discriminatory effectiveness. This allows for risk stratification and provides a basis for assessing interventions to reduce mortality in high-risk 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.