Observational studyCurrent medical science2025
Machine Learning-Based Mortality Prediction for Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding Patients Admitted to Intensive Care Unit.
Observational study in Current medical science, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe study aimed to develop machine learning (ML) models to predict the mortality of patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding (AGIB) in the intensive care unit (ICU) and compared their prognostic performance with that of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE-II) score.
methodsA total of 961 AGIB patients admitted to the ICU of Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University from January 2020 to December 2023 were enrolled. Patients were randomly divided into the training cohort (n = 768) and the validation cohort (n = 193). Clinical data were collected within the first 24 h of ICU admission. ML models were constructed using Python V.3.7 package, employing 3 different algorithms: XGBoost, Random Forest (RF) and Gradient Boosting Decision Tree (GBDT). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was used to evaluate the performance of different models.
resultsA total of 94 patients died with an overall mortality of 9.78% (11.32% in the training cohort and 8.96% in the validation cohort). Among the 3 ML models, the GBDT algorithm demonstrated the highest predictive performance, achieving an AUC of 0.95 (95% CI 0.90-0.99), while the AUCs of XGBoost and RF models were 0.89 (95% CI 0.82-0.96) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.96), respectively. In comparison, the APACHE-II model achieved an AUC of 0.74 (95% CI 0.69-0.87), with a specificity of 70.97% (95% CI 64.07-77.01). When APACHE-II score was incorporated into the GBDT algorithm, the ensemble model achieved an AUC of 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99) with a sensitivity of 85.71% and a specificity up to 95.15%.
conclusionsThe GBDT model serves as a reliable tool for accurately predicting the in-hospital mortality for AGIB patients. When integrated with the APACHE-II score, the ensemble GBDT algorithm further enhances predictive accuracy and provides valuable insights for prognostic evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40014197What 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.