ArticleScientific reports2025
Predicting mortality and risk factors of sepsis related ARDS using machine learning models.
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 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Application of machine learning for the diagnosis and prognosis of sepsis-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Pooled it
- Prediction models for the occurrence and mortality of sepsis-associated lung injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Incidence and predictors of acute respiratory distress syndrome in sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Hospital-Acquired/Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Nonlinear correlation between lactate levels and 28-day all-cause mortality in patients with sepsis complicated by acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS): a retrospective study based on the MIMIC-IV database.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Improving retrospective ARDS case-finding using a simple 72-h physiologic persistence rule.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Article
- A study on the influencing factors of early clinical stability in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease complicated by pneumonia.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Predicting 30-day in-hospital mortality in ICU asthma patients: a retrospective machine learning study with external validation.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- Article
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
Abstract
Sepsis related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common and serious disease in clinic. Accurate prediction of in-hospital mortality of patients is crucial to optimize treatment and improve prognosis under the new global definition of ARDS. Our study aimed to use machine learning models to develop models that can effectively predict the in-hospital mortality of patients with sepsis related ARDS, calculate the mortality, and to identify related risk factors under the new global definition of ARDS. Based on MIMIC database, our study included 3470 first-time admission records of patients with sepsis related ARDS. After excluding 4 patients under the age of 18, 75 patients with less than 24 h stay in ICU, and 5 cases with missing indicators > 30%, finally 3386 cases were retained. The variance inflation factor (VIF) analysis was used to test the collinearity of the explanatory variables. The data were divided into the training set and the test set according to the ratio of 7:3. Six models, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), light gradient boosting (LightGBM), random forest (RF), classification and regression tree (CART), naive bayes (NB) and logistic regression (LR), were designed for training and testing. In the training set, XGBoost (AUROC = 0.951, 95% CI 0.942-0.961), LR (AUROC = 0.835, 95% CI 0.817-0.854), RF (AUROC = 1.0, 95% CI 1.0-1.0), LightGBM (AUROC = 1.0, 95% CI 1.0-1.0), CART (AUROC = 0.831, 95% CI 0.811-0.852), NB (AUROC = 0.793, 95% CI 0.772-0.814). In the test set, XGBoost (AUROC = 0.833, 95% CI 0.804-0.861), LR (AUROC = 0.82695% CI 0.796-0.856), RF (AUROC = 0.846, 95% CI 0.818-0.874), LightGBM (AUROC = 0.827, 95% CI 0.798-0.856), CART (AUROC = 0.753, 95% CI 0.718-0.787), NB (AUROC = 0.799, 95% CI 0.768-0.831). The RF model has the best performance on the test set. Further analyze the feature importance ranking and partial dependence plots of random forest model. Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation III (APACHE III), bicarbonate, anion gap and non-invasive blood pressure systolic were identified as the four most important risk characteristics. In this study, a variety of machine learning models have been successfully constructed to predict the in-hospital mortality of patients with sepsis related ARDS, among which the RF model performs well. Key risk factors identified include APACHE III, bicarbonate, anion gap and non-invasive blood pressure systolic. The identification of these factors helps clinicians to assess patients' conditions more accurately and develop personalized treatment plans, thereby improving the survival rate and prognosis quality of patients under the new global definition of ARDS.
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.