ArticlePloS one2025
Analysis of aPTT predictors after unfractionated heparin administration in intensive care units using machine learning models.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPredicting optimal coagulation control using heparin in intensive care units (ICUs) remains a significant challenge. This study aimed to develop a machine learning (ML) model to predict activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) in ICU patients receiving unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation and to identify key predictive factors.
methodsData were obtained from the Tokushukai Medical Database, covering six hospitals with ICUs in Japan, collected between 2018 and 2022. The study included 945 ICU patients who received unfractionated heparin. The dataset comprised both static and dynamic features, which were used to construct and train ML models. Models were developed to predict aPTT following initial and multiple heparin doses. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC), area under the precision-recall curve (PR AUC), precision, recall, F1 score, and accuracy. SHAP analysis was conducted to determine key predictive factors.
resultsThe random forest model demonstrated the highest predictive performance, with ROC AUC values of 0.707 for the first infusion and 0.732 for multiple infusions. Corresponding PR AUC values were 0.539 and 0.551. Despite moderate overall predictive performance, the model exhibited high precision (0.585 for the first infusion and 0.589 for multiple infusions), indicating effectiveness in correctly identifying true positive cases. However, recall and F1 scores were lower, suggesting that some cases, particularly in sub-therapeutic and supra-therapeutic ranges, may have been missed. Incorporating time-series data, such as vital signs, provided only marginal improvements in performance.
conclusionsML models demonstrated moderate performance in predicting aPTT following heparin infusion in ICU patients, with the random forest model achieving the highest classification accuracy. Although the models effectively identified true positive cases, their overall predictive performance remained limited, necessitating further refinement. The inclusion of static and dynamic features did not significantly enhance model accuracy. Future studies should explore additional factors to improve predictive models for optimizing individualized anticoagulation management in ICUs.
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.