ArticleRevista Brasileira de terapia intensiva
Prediction of septic and hypovolemic shock in intensive care unit patients using machine learning.
Article in Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Profiling of Cardiogenic Shock: Incorporating Machine Learning Into Bedside Management.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo create and validate a model for predicting septic or hypovolemic shock from easily obtainable variables collected from patients at admission to an intensive care unit.
methodsA predictive modeling study with concurrent cohort data was conducted in a hospital in the interior of northeastern Brazil. Patients aged 18 years or older who were not using vasoactive drugs on the day of admission and were hospitalized from November 2020 to July 2021 were included. The Decision Tree, Random Forest, AdaBoost, Gradient Boosting and XGBoost classification algorithms were tested for use in building the model. The validation method used was k-fold cross validation. The evaluation metrics used were recall, precision and area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve.
resultsA total of 720 patients were used to create and validate the model. The models showed high predictive capacity with areas under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve of 0.979; 0.999; 0.980; 0.998 and 1.00 for the Decision Tree, Random Forest, AdaBoost, Gradient Boosting and XGBoost algorithms, respectively.
conclusionThe predictive model created and validated showed a high ability to predict septic and hypovolemic shock from the time of admission of patients to the intensive care unit.
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.