ArticleNeurocritical care2025
Evaluating the Machine Learning Models in Predicting Intensive Care Unit Discharge for Neurosurgical Patients Undergoing Craniotomy: A Big Data Analysis.
Article in Neurocritical care, 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.
- Preoperative tumor and edema volumes as predictors of ischemia and morbidity after intracranial meningioma surgery.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
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
backgroundPredicting intensive care unit (ICU) discharge for neurosurgical patients is crucial for optimizing bed sources, reducing costs, and improving outcomes. Our study aims to develop and validate machine learning (ML) models to predict ICU discharge within 24 h for patients undergoing craniotomy.
methodsThe 2,742 patients undergoing craniotomy were identified from Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care dataset using diagnosis-related group and International Classification of Diseases codes. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, and radiological data were collected and preprocessed. Textual clinical examinations were converted into numerical scales. Data were split into training (70%), validation (15%), and test (15%) sets. Four ML models, logistic regression (LR), decision tree, random forest, and neural network (NN), were trained and evaluated. Model performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), average precision (AP), accuracy, and F1 scores. Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) were used to analyze importance of features. Statistical analyses were performed using R (version 4.2.1) and ML analyses with Python (version 3.8), using scikit-learn, tensorflow, and shap packages.
resultsCohort included 2,742 patients (mean age 58.2 years; first and third quartiles 47-70 years), with 53.4% being male (n = 1,464). Total ICU stay was 15,645 bed days (mean length of stay 4.7 days), and total hospital stay was 32,008 bed days (mean length of stay 10.8 days). Random forest demonstrated highest performance (AUC 0.831, AP 0.561, accuracy 0.827, F1-score 0.339) on test set. NN achieved an AUC of 0.824, with an AP, accuracy, and F1-score of 0.558, 0.830, and 0.383, respectively. LR achieved an AUC of 0.821 and an accuracy of 0.829. The decision tree model showed lowest performance (AUC 0.813, accuracy 0.822). Key predictors of SHAP analysis included Glasgow Coma Scale, respiratory-related parameters (i.e., tidal volume, respiratory effort), intracranial pressure, arterial pH, and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale.
conclusionsRandom forest and NN predict ICU discharge well, whereas LR is interpretable but less accurate. Numeric conversion of clinical data improved performance. This study offers framework for predictions using clinical, radiological, and demographic features, with SHAP enhancing transparency.
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.