Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38961987›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Machine learning algorithm for predicting 30-day mortality in patients receiving rapid response system activation: A retrospective nationwide cohort study.

Takeo Kurita, Takehiko Oami, Yoko Tochigi, Keisuke Tomita, Takaki Naito, Kazuaki Atagi, Shigeki Fujitani, Taka-Aki Nakada, IHER-J collaborators

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors.

Takeo KuritaChiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo, Chiba, 260-8677, Japan.
Takehiko OamiChiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo, Chiba, 260-8677, Japan.
Yoko TochigiSmart119 Inc., 7th Floor, Chiba Chuo Twin Building No. 2, 2-5-1 Chuo, Chiba, 260-0013, Japan.
Keisuke TomitaChiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo, Chiba, 260-8677, Japan.
Takaki NaitoDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1, Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki-shi, Kanagawa, 216-8511, Japan.
Kazuaki AtagiIntensive Care Unit, Nara General Medical Center, 2-897-5, Shichijonishi, Nara-shi, Nara, 630-8581, Japan.
Shigeki FujitaniDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1, Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki-shi, Kanagawa, 216-8511, Japan.
Taka-Aki NakadaChiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo, Chiba, 260-8677, Japan.
IHER-J collaborators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Adverse eventArtificial intelligenceCritical careDeteriorated patientMachine learningPrognosis predictionRapid response system

Identifiers

PMID38961987
PMCPMC11219993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.