Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36701342›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Machine learning for prediction of in-hospital mortality in lung cancer patients admitted to intensive care unit.

Tianzhi Huang, Dejin Le, Lili Yuan, Shoujia Xu, Xiulan Peng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

5 authors.

Tianzhi HuangDepartment of Rehabilitation, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jianghan University, Wuhan, China.
Dejin LeDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, People's Hospital of Daye, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Hubei Polytechnic University, Daye, Hubei, China.
Lili YuanDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jianghan University, Wuhan, China.
Shoujia XuDepartment of Orthopedics, Sinopharm Dongfeng General Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, Hubei, China.
Xiulan PengDepartment of Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jianghan University, Wuhan, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8336-4253

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundsThe in-hospital mortality in lung cancer patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) is extremely high. This study intended to adopt machine learning algorithm models to predict in-hospital mortality of critically ill lung cancer for providing relative information in clinical decision-making.

methodsData were extracted from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV (MIMIC-IV) for a training cohort and data extracted from the Medical Information Mart for eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) database for a validation cohort. Logistic regression, random forest, decision tree, light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM), eXtreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and an ensemble (random forest+LightGBM+XGBoost) model were used for prediction of in-hospital mortality and important feature extraction. The AUC (area under receiver operating curve), accuracy, F1 score and recall were used to evaluate the predictive performance of each model. Shapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values were calculated to evaluate feature importance of each feature.

resultsOverall, there were 653 (24.8%) in-hospital mortality in the training cohort, and 523 (21.7%) in-hospital mortality in the validation cohort. Among the six machine learning models, the ensemble model achieved the best performance. The top 5 most influential features were the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, albumin, the oxford acute severity of illness score (OASIS) score, anion gap and bilirubin in random forest and XGBoost model. The SHAP summary plot was used to illustrate the positive or negative effects of the top 15 features attributed to the XGBoost model.

conclusionThe ensemble model performed best and might be applied to forecast in-hospital mortality of critically ill lung cancer patients, and the SOFA score was the most important feature in all models. These results might offer valuable and significant reference for ICU clinicians' decision-making in advance.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessLung NeoplasmsHospital MortalityHumansIntensive Care UnitsMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID36701342
PMCPMC9879439

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.