ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025
Fast and interpretable mortality risk scores for critical care patients.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 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.
- Interpretable machine learning for prognostic prediction in critically ill patients with coronary artery disease: a multicenter study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Early blood pressure response index and mortality risk in cardiogenic shock: evidence from two critical care cohorts.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Red cell distribution width and clinical outcomes in sepsis patients infected with Escherichia coli using data from MIMIC-IV.European journal of medical research · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePrediction of mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients typically relies on black box models (that are unacceptable for use in hospitals) or hand-tuned interpretable models (that might lead to the loss in performance). We aim to bridge the gap between these 2 categories by building on modern interpretable machine learning (ML) techniques to design interpretable mortality risk scores that are as accurate as black boxes. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe developed a new algorithm, GroupFasterRisk, which has several important benefits: it uses both hard and soft direct sparsity regularization, it incorporates group sparsity to allow more cohesive models, it allows for monotonicity constraint to include domain knowledge, and it produces many equally good models, which allows domain experts to choose among them. For evaluation, we leveraged the largest existing public ICU monitoring datasets (MIMIC III and eICU).
resultsModels produced by GroupFasterRisk outperformed OASIS and SAPS II scores and performed similarly to APACHE IV/IVa while using at most a third of the parameters. For patients with sepsis/septicemia, acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and acute kidney failure, GroupFasterRisk models outperformed OASIS and SOFA. Finally, different mortality prediction ML approaches performed better based on variables selected by GroupFasterRisk as compared to OASIS variables. DISCUSSION: GroupFasterRisk's models performed better than risk scores currently used in hospitals, and on par with black box ML models, while being orders of magnitude sparser. Because GroupFasterRisk produces a variety of risk scores, it allows design flexibility-the key enabler of practical model creation.
conclusionGroupFasterRisk is a fast, accessible, and flexible procedure that allows learning a diverse set of sparse risk scores for mortality prediction.
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.