ArticleJournal of emergencies, trauma, and shock
Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Models for Prediction of Acute Liver Injury in Sepsis Patients.
Article in Journal of emergencies, trauma, and shock. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accurate estimation of hip range of motion using MediaPipe and inertial sensors with machine learning models.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- A Machine Learning-Based Prognostic Model for Sepsis-Associated Liver Injury Using Routine Indicators.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2026Article
- Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence for Infectious Disease Surveillance, Diagnosis, and Prognosis.Viruses · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Acute liver injury (ALI) is a common complication of sepsis and is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. We aimed to develop a model to predict the risk of ALI in patients with sepsis after hospitalization. Methods: Medical records of 3196 septic patients treated at the Lishui Central Hospital in Zhejiang Province from January 2015 to May 2023 were selected. Cohort 1 was divided into ALI and non-ALI groups for model training and internal validation. The initial laboratory test results of the study subjects were used as features for machine learning (ML), and models built using nine different ML algorithms were compared to select the best algorithm and model. The predictive performance of model stacking methods was then explored. The best model was externally validated in Cohort 2. Results: In Cohort 1, LightGBM demonstrated good stability and predictive performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.841. The top five most important variables in the model were diabetes, congestive heart failure, prothrombin time, heart rate, and platelet count. The LightGBM model showed stable and good ALI risk prediction ability in the external validation of Cohort 2 with an AUC of 0.815. Furthermore, an online prediction website was developed to assist healthcare professionals in applying this model more effectively. Conclusions: The Light GBM model can predict the risk of ALI in patients with sepsis after hospitalization.
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.