ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2022
Machine learning models to predict in-hospital mortality in septic patients with diabetes.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-Term Adherence and Drug Utilisation Patterns Among New Users of Anti-Hyperlipidemic Monotherapy: Development of a Risk Prediction Model.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Prognostic value of the triglyceride-glucose index combined with atherogenic index of plasma for all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with chronic heart failure: a machine learning-driven retrospective cohort study.Lipids in health and disease · 2026Article
- Machine learning predicts diabetes risk in high-risk populations: analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a machine learning-based predictive model for chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in colorectal cancer patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Nomogram-based prediction of continued axial elongation in children undergoing orthokeratology.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Machine Learning-Based Mortality Risk Prediction Model in Patients with Sepsis.Journal of inflammation research · 2025Article
- Postpartum depression risk prediction using explainable machine learning algorithms.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Machine Learning Models in Sepsis Outcome Prediction for ICU Patients: Integrating Routine Laboratory Tests-A Systematic Review.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Glucocorticoid therapy for sepsis in the AI era: a survey on current and future approaches.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Review
- Clinical Sepsis Phenotypes in Critically Ill Patients.Microorganisms · 2023Review
- Predicting 1-year mortality of patients with diabetes mellitus in Kazakhstan based on administrative health data using machine learning.Scientific reports · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.