ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
An effective multi-step feature selection framework for clinical outcome prediction using electronic medical records.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning Integrating SERF-MEG and VEP for Diagnosis and Differential Diagnosis of Optic Neuropathies.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Feature selection methodology based on explainable AI: application in predicting extubation success in the intensive care unit.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A leakage-controlled and SHAP driven machine learning framework for paediatric respiratory disease classification using Indian hospital EHR data.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Gradual spatial constraint feature selection for robust biomarker discovery in high-dimensional gene expression data.BMC bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Explainable machine learning for postoperative respiratory failure prediction in open-heart surgery patients - a study based on the MIMIC-IV database.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Construction of an explainable machine learning model based on SHAP for predicting cardiovascular mortality risk among American cancer survivors.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- Machine Learning and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A New Paradigm in Prediction and Prognosis after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.Annals of vascular diseases · 2026Review
- Machine learning-driven risk assessment of severeFrontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- A consensus-weighted multi-agent ensemble feature selection framework for antibiotic susceptibility prediction in pediatric respiratory diseases.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- ACLPred: an explainable machine learning and tree-based ensemble model for anticancer ligand prediction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Association between the blood urea nitrogen to serum albumin ratio and the risk of mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease: a cohort study.BMC nephrology · 2025Article
- Identifying risk factors and predicting stroke using Bayesian networks: Evidence from NHANES 2011-2020.Digital healthArticle
- Machine learning-based classification of HIV viral load suppression in low-resource settings.Digital healthArticle
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
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying key variables is essential for developing clinical outcome prediction models based on high-dimensional electronic medical records (EMR). However, despite the abundance of feature selection (FS) methods available, challenges remain in choosing the most appropriate method, deciding how many top-ranked variables to include, and ensuring these selections are meaningful from a medical perspective.
methodsWe developed a practical multi-step feature selection (FS) framework that integrates data-driven statistical inference with a knowledge verification strategy. This framework was validated using two distinct EMR datasets targeting different clinical outcomes. The first cohort, sourced from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC-III), focused on predicting acute kidney injury (AKI) in ICU patients. The second cohort, drawn from the MIMIC-IV Emergency Department (MIMIC-IV-ED), aimed to estimate in-hospital mortality (IHM) for patients transferred from the ED to the ICU. We employed various machine learning (ML) methods and conducted a comparative analysis considering accuracy, stability, similarity, and interpretability. The effectiveness of our FS framework was evaluated using discrimination and calibration metrics, with SHAP applied to enhance the interpretability of model decisions.
resultsCohort 1 comprised 48,780 ICU encounters, of which 8,883 (18.21%) developed AKI. Cohort 2 included 29,197 transfers from the ED to the ICU, with 3,219 (11.03%) resulting in IHM. Among the ten ML methods evaluated, the tree-based ensemble method achieved the highest accuracy. As the number of top-ranking features increased, the models' accuracy began to stabilize, while feature subset stability (considering sample variations) and inter-method feature similarity reached optimal levels, confirming the validity of the FS framework. The integration of interpretative methods and expert knowledge in the final step further improved feature interpretability. The FS framework effectively reduced the number of features (e.g., from 380 to 35 for Cohort 1, and from 273 to 54 for Cohort 2) without significantly affecting prediction performance (Delong test, p > 0.05).
conclusionThe multi-step FS method developed in this study successfully reduces the dimensionality of features in EMR while preserving the accuracy of clinical outcome prediction. Furthermore, it improves the interpretability of risk factors by incorporating expert knowledge validation.
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.