Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36465642›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2022

Machine learning models to predict in-hospital mortality in septic patients with diabetes.

Jing Qi, Jingchao Lei, Nanyi Li, Dan Huang, Huaizheng Liu, Kefu Zhou, Zheren Dai, Chuanzheng Sun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. 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

8 authors.

Jing QiDepartment of Emergency, Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Jingchao LeiDepartment of Emergency, Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Nanyi LiDepartment of Emergency, Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Dan HuangDepartment of Emergency, Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Huaizheng LiuDepartment of Emergency, Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Kefu ZhouDepartment of Emergency, Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Zheren DaiDepartment of Emergency, Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Chuanzheng SunDepartment of Emergency, Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Sepsis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Up to now, there are no well-established longitudinal networks from molecular mechanisms to clinical phenotypes in sepsis. Adding to the problem, about one of the five patients presented with diabetes. For this subgroup, management is difficult, and prognosis is difficult to evaluate. Methods: From the three databases, a total of 7,001 patients were enrolled on the basis of sepsis-3 standard and diabetes diagnosis. Input variable selection is based on the result of correlation analysis in a handpicking way, and 53 variables were left. A total of 5,727 records were collected from Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care database and randomly split into a training set and an internal validation set at a ratio of 7:3. Then, logistic regression with lasso regularization, Bayes logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, and XGBoost were conducted to build the predictive model by using training set. Then, the models were tested by the internal validation set. The data from eICU Collaborative Research Database (n = 815) and dtChina critical care database (n = 459) were used to test the model performance as the external validation set. Results: In the internal validation set, the accuracy values of logistic regression with lasso regularization, Bayes logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, and XGBoost were 0.878, 0.883, 0.865, 0.883, and 0.882, respectively. Likewise, in the external validation set 1, lasso regularization = 0.879, Bayes logistic regression = 0.877, decision tree = 0.865, random forest = 0.886, and XGBoost = 0.875. In the external validation set 2, lasso regularization = 0.715, Bayes logistic regression = 0.745, decision tree = 0.763, random forest = 0.760, and XGBoost = 0.699. Conclusion: The top three models for internal validation set were Bayes logistic regression, random forest, and XGBoost, whereas the top three models for external validation set 1 were random forest, logistic regression, and Bayes logistic regression. In addition, the top three models for the external validation set 2 were decision tree, random forest, and Bayes logistic regression. Random forest model performed well with the training and three validation sets. The most important features are age, albumin, and lactate.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusSepsisBayes TheoremHospital MortalityHumansLactic AcidMachine LearningLactic Aciddiabetesin-hospital mortalitymachine learningrisk factorssepsis

Identifiers

PMID36465642
PMCPMC9709414

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.