ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Survival prediction for heart failure complicated by sepsis: based on machine learning methods.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and internal validation of an ICU mortality prediction model for patients with concurrent sepsis and heart failure: a retrospective cohort study based on eICU-CRD.Cardiovascular diabetology. Endocrinology reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Heart failure is a cardiovascular disorder, while sepsis is a common non-cardiac cause of mortality. Patients with combined heart failure and sepsis have a significantly higher mortality rate and poor prognosis, making early identification of high-risk patients and appropriate allocation of medical resources critically important. Methods: We constructed a survival prediction model for patients with heart failure and sepsis using the eICU-CRD database and externally validated it using the MIMIC-IV database. Our primary outcome is the 28-day all-cause mortality rate. The Boruta method is used for initial feature selection, followed by feature ranking using the XGBoost algorithm. Four machine learning models were compared, including Logistic Regression (LR), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost), and Gaussian Naive Bayes (GNB). Model performance was assessed using metrics such as area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, and the SHAP method was utilized to visualize feature importance and interpret model results. Additionally, we conducted external validation using the MIMIC-IV database. Results: We developed a survival prediction model for heart failure complicated by sepsis using data from 3891 patients in the eICU-CRD and validated it externally with 2928 patients from the MIMIC-IV database. The LR model outperformed all other machine learning algorithms with a validation set AUC of 0.746 (XGBoost: 0.726, AdaBoost: 0.744, GNB: 0.722), alongside accuracy (0.685), sensitivity (0.666), and specificity (0.712). The final model incorporates 10 features: age, ventilation, norepinephrine, white blood cell count, total bilirubin, temperature, phenylephrine, respiratory rate, neutrophil count, and systolic blood pressure. We employed the SHAP method to enhance the interpretability of the model based on the LR algorithm. Additionally, external validation was conducted using the MIMIC-IV database, with an external validation AUC of 0.699. Conclusion: Based on the LR algorithm, a model was constructed to effectively predict the 28-day all-cause mortality rate in patients with heart failure complicated by sepsis. Utilizing our model predictions, clinicians can promptly identify high-risk patients and receive guidance for clinical practice.
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.