ArticleHealthcare technology letters2024
Machine learning modelling for predicting the utilization of invasive and non-invasive ventilation throughout the ICU duration.
Article in Healthcare technology letters, 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.
- Guest Editorial: Big data and artificial intelligence in healthcare.Healthcare technology letters · 2024Article
- Machine learning modelling for predicting the utilization of invasive and non-invasive ventilation throughout the ICU duration.Healthcare technology letters · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of this work is to develop a Machine Learning model to predict the need for both invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Using the Philips eICU Research Institute (ERI) database, 2.6 million ICU patient data from 2010 to 2019 were analyzed. This data was randomly split into training (63%), validation (27%), and test (10%) sets. Additionally, an external test set from a single hospital from the ERI database was employed to assess the model's generalizability. Model performance was determined by comparing the model probability predictions with the actual incidence of ventilation use, either invasive or non-invasive. The model demonstrated a prediction performance with an AUC of 0.921 for overall ventilation, 0.937 for invasive, and 0.827 for non-invasive. Factors such as high Glasgow Coma Scores, younger age, lower BMI, and lower PaCO2 were highlighted as indicators of a lower likelihood for the need for ventilation. The model can serve as a retrospective benchmarking tool for hospitals to assess ICU performance concerning mechanical ventilation necessity. It also enables analysis of ventilation strategy trends and risk-adjusted comparisons, with potential for future testing as a clinical decision tool for optimizing ICU ventilation management.
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.