ArticleScientific reports2025
Explainable machine learning for predicting ICU mortality in myocardial infarction patients using pseudo-dynamic data.
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 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.
- STREAM: A data-driven framework for physiological state monitoring in ICU patients.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- A multicenter machine learning model for predicting ICU mortality in mechanically ventilated patients: development and external validation.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Serum lipidome remodeling in viral pneumonia: from pathophysiology to therapeutics.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Multimodal data for predictive medicine: algorithmic fusion of clinical data in anesthesiology and intensive care.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Interpretable machine learning for prognostic prediction in critically ill patients with coronary artery disease: a multicenter study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence applications in intensive care unit nursing: A narrative review (2020-2025).Digital healthReview
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myocardial infarction (MI) remains one of the greatest contributors to mortality, and patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with myocardial infarction are at higher risk of death. In this study, we use two retrospective cohorts extracted from two US-based ICU databases, eICU and MIMIC-IV, to develop an explainable pseudo-dynamic machine learning framework for mortality prediction in the ICU. The method provides accurate prediction for ICU patients up to 24 hours before the event and provides time-resolved interpretability. We compare standard supervised machine learning algorithms with novel tabular deep learning approaches and find that an integrated XGBoost model in our EHR time-series extraction framework (XMI-ICU) performs best. The framework was evaluated on a held-out test set from eICU and externally validated on the MIMIC-IV cohort using the most important features identified by time-resolved Shapley values. XMI-ICU achieved AUROCs of 92.0 (balanced accuracy of 82.3) for a 6-hour prediction of mortality. We demonstrate that XMI-ICU maintains reliable predictive performance across different prediction horizons (6, 12, 18, and 24 hours) during ICU stay while also achieving successful external validation in a separate patient cohort from MIMIC-IV without any previous training on that dataset. We also evaluated the framework for clinical risk analysis by comparing it to the standard APACHE IV system in active use. We show that our framework successfully leverages time-series physiological measurements from ICU health records by translating them into stacked static prediction problems for mortality in heart attack patients and can offer clinical insight from time-resolved interpretability through the use of Shapley values.
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.