ArticlePloS one2025
Development and validation of interpretable machine learning models for triage patients admitted to the intensive care unit.
Article in PloS one, 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 In-Hospital Mortality Prediction in ICU Patients Using First-24-Hour Routine Vital Signs: A SHAP-Based MIMIC-IV Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Research trends and ethical perspectives on explainable artificial intelligence in emergency medicine: a bibliometric analysis.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Surrogate modeling for time-dependent reliability analysis of robotic manipulator trajectories.PloS one · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDeveloping and validating interpretable machine learning (ML) models for predicting whether triaged patients need to be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). MEASURES: The study analyzed 189,167 emergency patients from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV database, with the outcome being ICU admission. Three models were compared: Model 1 based on Emergency Severity Index (ESI), Model 2 on vital signs, and Model 3 on vital signs, demographic characteristics, medical history, and chief complaints. Nine ML algorithms were employed. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), F1 Score, Positive Predictive Value, Negative Predictive Value, Brier score, calibration curves, and decision curves analysis were used to evaluate the performance of the models. SHapley Additive exPlanations was used for explaining ML models.
resultsThe AUC of Model 3 was superior to that of Model 1 and Model 2. In Model 3, the top four algorithms with the highest AUC were Gradient Boosting (0.81), Logistic Regression (0.81), naive Bayes (0.80), and Random Forest (0.80). Upon further comparison of the four algorithms, Gradient Boosting was slightly superior to Random Forest and Logistic Regression, while naive Bayes performed the worst.
conclusionsThis study developed an interpretable ML triage model using vital signs, demographics, medical history, and chief complaints, proving more effective than traditional models in predicting ICU admission. Interpretable ML aids clinical decisions during triage.
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.