ArticleHeliyon2024
Machine learning algorithm for predicting 30-day mortality in patients receiving rapid response system activation: A retrospective nationwide cohort study.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a Machine Learning-Based Predictive Model and Clinically Oriented Web Application for 30-Day Mortality Following Cardiac Surgery.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- MIASurviveMTP: Machine learning for immediate assessment and survival prediction after massive transfusion protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the accuracy of a machine learning algorithm for predicting mortality in patients receiving rapid response system (RRS) activation. This retrospective cohort study used data from the In-Hospital Emergency Registry in Japan, which collects nationwide data on patients receiving RRS activation. The missing values in the dataset were replaced using multiple imputations (mode imputation, BayseRidge sklearn. linear model, and K-nearest neighbor model), and the enrolled patients were randomly assigned to the training and test cohorts. We established prediction models for 30-day mortality using the following four types of machine learning classifiers: Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM), eXtreme Gradient Boosting, random forest, and neural network. Fifty-two variables (patient characteristics, details of RRS activation, reasons for RRS initiation, and hospital capacity) were used to construct the prediction algorithm. The primary outcome was the accuracy of the prediction model for 30-day mortality. Overall, the data from 4,997 patients across 34 hospitals were analyzed. The machine learning algorithms using LightGBM demonstrated the highest predictive value for 30-day mortality (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.860 [95 % confidence interval, 0.825-0.895]). The SHapley Additive exPlanations summary plot indicated that hospital capacity, site of incidence, code status, and abnormal vital signs within 24 h were important variables in the prediction model for 30-day mortality.
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.