ArticleIrish journal of medical science2025
Interpretation of acid-base metabolism on arterial blood gas samples via machine learning algorithms.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2025. 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.
- Unveiling the Gaps: Machine Learning Models for Unmeasured Ions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Techniques for the Analysis of the Influence of Blood Gasometry Parameters on Acid-Base Homeostasis in Pediatric Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Human-in-the-Loop Performance of LLM-Assisted Arterial Blood Gas Interpretation: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArterial blood gas evaluation is crucial for critically ill patients, as it provides essential information about acid-base metabolism and respiratory balance, but evaluation can be complex and time-consuming. Artificial intelligence can perform tasks that require human intelligence, and it is revolutionizing healthcare through technological advancements.
aimThis study aims to assess arterial blood gas evaluation using artificial intelligence algorithms.
methodsThe study included 21.541 retrospective arterial blood gas samples, categorized into 15 different classes by experts for evaluating acid-base metabolism status. Six machine learning algorithms were utilized; accuracy, balanced accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F1 values of the models were determined; and ROC curves were drawn to assess areas under the curve for each class. Evaluation of which sample was estimated in which class was conducted using the confusion matrices of the models.
resultsThe bagging classifier (BC) model achieved the highest balanced accuracy with 99.24%, whereas the XGBoost model reached the highest accuracy with 99.66%. The BC model shows 100% sensitivity for nine classes and 100% specificity for 10 classes, and the model correctly predicted 6438 of 6463 test samples and achieved an accuracy of 99.61%, with an area under the curve > 0.9 in all classes on a class basis.
conclusionThe machine learning models developed exhibited remarkable accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in predicting the status of acid-base metabolism. However, implementing these models can aid clinicians, freeing up their time for more intricate tasks.
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.