ArticlePloS one2025
Predicting in-hospital mortality in ICU patients with Coronary heart disease and diabetes mellitus 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. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Decoding cardiovascular risk in Chinese middle-aged and elderly adults: a 9-year prospective study integrating machine learning with explainable AI based on CHARLS cohort.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Review
- BUN and mortality in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: A retrospective cohort study.Science progressArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronary heart disease (CHD) and diabetes mellitus are highly prevalent in intensive care units (ICUs) and significantly contribute to high in-hospital mortality rates. Traditional risk stratification models often fail to capture the complex interactions among clinical variables, limiting their ability to accurately identify high-risk patients. Machine learning (ML) models, with their capacity to analyze large datasets and identify intricate patterns, provide a promising alternative for improving mortality prediction accuracy.
objectiveThis study aims to develop and validate machine learning models for predicting in-hospital mortality in ICU patients with CHD and diabetes, and enhance model interpretability using SHapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) values, thereby providing a more accurate and practical tool for clinicians.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the MIMIC-IV database, focusing on adult ICU patients with a primary diagnosis of CHD and diabetes. We extracted baseline characteristics, laboratory parameters, and clinical outcomes. The Boruta algorithm was employed for feature selection to identify variables significantly associated with in-hospital mortality, and 16 machine learning models, including logistic regression, random forest, gradient boosting, and neural networks, were developed and compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) analysis. SHAP values were used to explain variable importance and enhance model interpretability.
resultsOur study included 2,213 patients, of whom 345 (15.6%) experienced in-hospital mortality. The Boruta algorithm identified 29 significant risk factors, and the top 13 variables were used for developing machine learning models. The gradient boosting classifier achieved the highest AUC of 0.8532, outperforming other models. SHAP analysis highlighted age, blood urea nitrogen, and pH as the most important predictors of mortality. SHAP waterfall plots provided detailed individualized risk assessments, demonstrating the model's ability to identify high-risk subgroups effectively.
conclusionsMachine learning models, especially the gradient boosting classifier, demonstrated superior performance in predicting in-hospital mortality in ICU patients with CHD and diabetes, outperforming traditional statistical methods. These models provide valuable insights for risk stratification and have the potential to improve clinical outcomes. Future work should focus on external validation and clinical implementation to further enhance their applicability and effectiveness in managing this high-risk population.
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.