ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Interpretability-based machine learning for predicting the risk of death from pulmonary inflammation in Chinese intensive care unit patients.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this research was to create a machine learning predictive model that could be easily interpreted in order to precisely determine the risk of premature death in patients receiving intensive care after pulmonary inflammation. Methods: In this study, information from the China intensive care units (ICU) Open Source database was used to examine data from 2790 patients who had infections between January 2019 and December 2020. A 7:3 ratio was used to randomly assign the whole patient population to training and validation groups. This study used six machine learning techniques: logistic regression, random forest, gradient boosting tree, extreme gradient boosting tree (XGBoost), multilayer perceptron, and K-nearest neighbor. A cross-validation grid search method was used to search the parameters in each model. Eight metrics were used to assess the models' performance: accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, area under the curve (AUC) value, Brier score, Jordon's index, and calibration slope. The machine methods were ranked based on how well they performed in each of these metrics. The best-performing models were selected for interpretation using both the Shapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) and Local interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIME) interpretable techniques. Results: A subset of the study cohort's patients (120/1668, or 7.19%) died in the hospital following screening for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Using a cross-validated grid search to evaluate the six machine learning techniques, XGBoost showed good discriminative ability, achieving an accuracy score of 0.889 (0.874-0.904), precision score of 0.871 (0.849-0.893), recall score of 0.913 (0.890-0.936), F1 score of 0.891 (0.876-0.906), and AUC of 0.956 (0.939-0.973). Additionally, XGBoost exhibited excellent performance with a Brier score of 0.050, Jordon index of 0.947, and calibration slope of 1.074. It was also possible to create an interactive internet page using the XGBoost model. Conclusion: By identifying patients at higher risk of early mortality, machine learning-based mortality risk prediction models have the potential to significantly improve patient care by directing clinical decision making and enabling early detection of survival and mortality issues in patients with pulmonary inflammation disease.
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.