ArticleChinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi2025
Explainable machine learning model for predicting septic shock in critically sepsis patients based on coagulation indexes: A multicenter cohort study.
Article in Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi, 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.
- Artificial intelligence based predictive models for early sepsis detection in intensive care units: a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- [Research advances on the application of artificial intelligence technology in the diagnosis and treatment of sepsis patients].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSeptic shock is associated with high mortality and poor outcomes among sepsis patients with coagulopathy. Although traditional statistical methods or machine learning (ML) algorithms have been proposed to predict septic shock, these potential approaches have never been systematically compared. The present work aimed to develop and compare models to predict septic shock among patients with sepsis.
methodsIt is a retrospective cohort study based on 484 patients with sepsis who were admitted to our intensive care units between May 2018 and November 2022. Patients from the 908th Hospital of Chinese PLA Logistical Support Force and Nanchang Hongdu Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine were respectively allocated to training (n=311) and validation (n=173) sets. All clinical and laboratory data of sepsis patients characterized by comprehensive coagulation indexes were collected. We developed 5 models based on ML algorithms and 1 model based on a traditional statistical method to predict septic shock in the training cohort. The performance of all models was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration plots. Decision curve analysis was used to evaluate the net benefit of the models. The validation set was applied to verify the predictive accuracy of the models. This study also used Shapley additive explanations method to assess variable importance and explain the prediction made by a ML algorithm.
resultsAmong all patients, 37.2% experienced septic shock. The characteristic curves of the 6 models ranged from 0.833 to 0.962 and 0.630 to 0.744 in the training and validation sets, respectively. The model with the best prediction performance was based on the support vector machine (SVM) algorithm, which was constructed by age, tissue plasminogen activator-inhibitor complex, prothrombin time, international normalized ratio, white blood cells, and platelet counts. The SVM model showed good calibration and discrimination and a greater net benefit in decision curve analysis.
conclusionThe SVM algorithm may be superior to other ML and traditional statistical algorithms for predicting septic shock. Physicians can better understand the reliability of the predictive model by Shapley additive explanations value analysis.
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.