Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38977750›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) for predicting the need for intubation in methanol-poisoned patients: a study comparing deep and machine learning models.

Khadijeh Moulaei, Mohammad Reza Afrash, Mohammad Parvin, Shahin Shadnia, Mitra Rahimi, Babak Mostafazadeh, Peyman Erfan Talab Evini, Babak Sabet, Seyed Mohammad Vahabi, Amirali Soheili and 5 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Cross-Scale Guidance Integration Transformer for Instance Segmentation in Pathology Images.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

15 authors.

Khadijeh Moulaei *Department of Health Information Technology, School of Paramedical, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran.
Mohammad Reza Afrash *Deparment of Artificial Intelligence, Smart University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mohammad ParvinDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA.
Shahin ShadniaToxicological Research Center, Excellence Center of Clinical Toxicology, Department of Clinical Toxicology, Loghman Hakim Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mitra RahimiToxicological Research Center, Excellence Center of Clinical Toxicology, Department of Clinical Toxicology, Loghman Hakim Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Babak MostafazadehToxicological Research Center, Excellence Center of Clinical Toxicology, Department of Clinical Toxicology, Loghman Hakim Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Peyman Erfan Talab EviniToxicological Research Center, Excellence Center of Clinical Toxicology, Department of Clinical Toxicology, Loghman Hakim Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Babak SabetDeparment of Artificial Intelligence, Smart University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Seyed Mohammad VahabiSchool of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Amirali SoheiliRajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mobin FathySchool of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Arya KazemiStudents Research Committee, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Sina KhaniStudents Research Committee, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Seyed Mohammad MortazaviStudents Research Committee, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Sayed Masoud HosseiniToxicological Research Center, Excellence Center of Clinical Toxicology, Department of Clinical Toxicology, Loghman Hakim Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. hoseinim902@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The need for intubation in methanol-poisoned patients, if not predicted in time, can lead to irreparable complications and even death. Artificial intelligence (AI) techniques like machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) greatly aid in accurately predicting intubation needs for methanol-poisoned patients. So, our study aims to assess Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) for predicting intubation necessity in methanol-poisoned patients, comparing deep learning and machine learning models. This study analyzed a dataset of 897 patient records from Loghman Hakim Hospital in Tehran, Iran, encompassing cases of methanol poisoning, including those requiring intubation (202 cases) and those not requiring it (695 cases). Eight established ML (SVM, XGB, DT, RF) and DL (DNN, FNN, LSTM, CNN) models were used. Techniques such as tenfold cross-validation and hyperparameter tuning were applied to prevent overfitting. The study also focused on interpretability through SHAP and LIME methods. Model performance was evaluated based on accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, F1-score, and ROC curve metrics. Among DL models, LSTM showed superior performance in accuracy (94.0%), sensitivity (99.0%), specificity (94.0%), and F1-score (97.0%). CNN led in ROC with 78.0%. For ML models, RF excelled in accuracy (97.0%) and specificity (100%), followed by XGB with sensitivity (99.37%), F1-score (98.27%), and ROC (96.08%). Overall, RF and XGB outperformed other models, with accuracy (97.0%) and specificity (100%) for RF, and sensitivity (99.37%), F1-score (98.27%), and ROC (96.08%) for XGB. ML models surpassed DL models across all metrics, with accuracies from 93.0% to 97.0% for DL and 93.0% to 99.0% for ML. Sensitivities ranged from 98.0% to 99.37% for DL and 93.0% to 99.0% for ML. DL models achieved specificities from 78.0% to 94.0%, while ML models ranged from 93.0% to 100%. F1-scores for DL were between 93.0% and 97.0%, and for ML between 96.0% and 98.27%. DL models scored ROC between 68.0% and 78.0%, while ML models ranged from 84.0% to 96.08%. Key features for predicting intubation necessity include GCS at admission, ICU admission, age, longer folic acid therapy duration, elevated BUN and AST levels, VBG_HCO3 at initial record, and hemodialysis presence. This study as the showcases XAI's effectiveness in predicting intubation necessity in methanol-poisoned patients. ML models, particularly RF and XGB, outperform DL counterparts, underscoring their potential for clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMachine LearningMethanolAdultDeep LearningFemaleHumansIntubation, IntratrachealIranMaleMiddle AgedROC CurveMethanolDeep learningExplainable artificial intelligence (XAI)IntubationMachine learningMethanolPredict

Identifiers

PMID38977750
PMCPMC11231277

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.