ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025
Construction and evaluation of a machine learning-based predictive model for enteral nutrition feeding intolerance risk in ICU patients.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Artificial intelligence-guided nutritional therapy in the ICU.Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care · 2026Review
- Development and evaluation of a machine learning-based risk prediction model for enteral feeding intolerance in sepsis patients.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- An evaluation based on explainable machine learning: analysis of risk factors for enteral nutrition-related diarrhea in patients with severe stroke.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Screening of risk factors and construction of a prediction model for enteral nutrition intolerance in elderly patients with comorbidities and sarcopenia.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Post-operative early enteral nutrition intolerance in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery: current status and nursing strategies.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Predicting myopia risk using a machine learning model based on fundus imageomics.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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
Objective: We aim to investigate the factors influencing enteral nutrition feeding intolerance (ENFI) in critically ill patients and develop a risk prediction model for ENFI in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, utilizing three machine learning algorithms. This model will serve as an assessment tool for preventing and managing ENFI in ICU patients. Methods: A total of 487 ICU patients from a tertiary hospital in Zhejiang Province between January 2021 and December 2023 were selected as the study subjects. The patients were randomly divided into a training set and a test set in an 8:2 ratio. Three machine learning algorithms-logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), and random forest (RF)-were used to construct the risk prediction model for ENFI in ICU patients. The predictive performance of the three models was compared using metrics such as AUC (area under the ROC curve), accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score. Results: The logistic regression model achieved an AUC of 0.9308, with an accuracy of 94.3%, precision of 95.4%, recall of 88.6%, and an F1-score of 0.9185 in correctly identifying ENFI risk in ICU patients. The random forest model attained an AUC of 0.9511, with an accuracy of 96.1%, precision of 97.7%, recall of 91.4%, and an F1-score of 0.9446. The support vector machine (SVM) model yielded an AUC of 0.9241, with an accuracy of 94.1%, precision of 96.8%, recall of 86.4%, and an F1-score of 0.9132. Conclusion: The random forest model performed the best in this study, demonstrating superior predictive performance.
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.