ArticleScientific reports2025
Development and validation of machine learning models for predicting extubation failure in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a retrospective study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extubation Failure after Pediatric Cardiac Surgery.Annals of cardiac anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Dynamic and interpretable deep learning model for predicting respiratory failure following cardiac surgery.BMC anesthesiology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with multiple comorbidities and those undergoing complex cardiac surgery may experience extubation failure and reintubation. The aim of this study was to establish an extubation prediction model using explainable machine learning and identify the most important predictors of extubation failure in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Data from 776 adult patients who underwent cardiac surgery and were intubated for more than 24 h were obtained from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-IV database. The primary endpoint was extubation failure according to the WIND criteria, with 205 patients experiencing extubation failure. The data was split into a training set (80%) and a test set (20%). The performance of the XGBoost algorithm was the highest (AUC 0.793, Mean Precision 0.700, Brier Score0.150), which was better than that of logistic regression (AUC 0.766, Mean Precision 0.553, Brier Score0.173) and random forest (AUC 0.791, Mean Precision 0.510, Brier Score 0.181). The most crucial predictor of extubation failure is the mean value of the anion gap in the 24 h before extubation. The other main features include ventilator parameters and blood gas indicators. By applying machine learning to large datasets, we developed a new method for predicting extubation failure after cardiac surgery in critically ill patients. Based on the predictive factors analyzed, internal environmental indicators and ventilation characteristics were important predictors of extubation failure. Therefore, these predictive factors should be considered when determining extubation readiness.
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.