ArticleThe American surgeon2026
Predicting Unplanned Intubations in Rib Fracture Patients: An Interpretable Machine Learning Approach.
Article in The American surgeon, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BackgroundTraumatic rib fractures can lead to respiratory complications necessitating unplanned intubation, but predictors have been inadequately delineated. We used interpretable machine learning to predict unplanned intubations in rib fracture patients while identifying predictors.MethodsTQIP 2017-2022 was queried for adult patients admitted to the hospital following a rib fracture injury. An XGBoost model was developed to predict unplanned intubation using variables that can be known on admission. A 70/10/20 train/validation/test split was used. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were used for interpretation. SHAP allows individualized interpretation of predictors for each patient.ResultsThe cohort had 905 615 patients; 2.3% had unplanned intubations. Model metrics at the F1 maximizing threshold (0.78) included AUROC = 0.83, F1 score = 0.17, accuracy = 0.94, precision = 0.12, recall = 0.29, specificity = 0.95, and Brier score = 0.17. The most influential variables, as determined by mean absolute SHAP values, were admission location (0.62), Injury Severity Score (0.40), age (0.37), absence of comorbidities (0.18), pulse rate (0.14), pneumothorax (0.13), oxygen saturation (0.15), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (0.11), respiratory rate (0.10), and sex (0.10). ICU admission was the location most influential in predicting an unplanned intubation. SHAP dependency plots determined the directional relationship between variables' values and SHAP values.DiscussionPatients above the F1 maximizing threshold had a 7.4-fold increase in unplanned intubations compared to those below. Nearly 30% of all unplanned intubations were captured at this threshold. Our model's identification of these high-risk patients and influential factors not previously considered in the literature could guide closer monitoring and early interventions.
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.