ArticleScientific reports2025
Real-time prediction of HFNC treatment failure in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure using machine learning.
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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine learning-based prediction models for noninvasive respiratory support failure in acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Development of a predictive model for high-flow nasal cannula treatment failure in emergency department patients with acute heart failure: a retrospective secondary data analysis.Journal of Korean biological nursing science · 2026Article
- Prediction of high-flow nasal cannula failure in critically ill patients: a narrative review.Journal of intensive care · 2026Review
- Observational
- Development and external validation of a machine learning model to predict high flow nasal cannula failure.BMJ open respiratory research · 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
Accurate and timely prediction of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) treatment failure in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) can lower patient mortality. Previous studies have highlighted inconsistencies in the predictive performance of existing indices, such as ROX and mROX, which are limited by their reliance on oxygenation parameters alone. To address this, we developed a machine learning-based predictive model using temporal data from AHRF patients, aimed at facilitating quicker development of individualized treatment plans and intervention strategies for healthcare professionals. We extracted 15 non-invasive and 15 laboratory features, including patient demographic characteristics, Glasgow Coma Scale, blood gas analysis, chemical assay, and complete blood cell count features. In addition to five machine learning models and an ensemble classifier, an long short-term memory (LSTM) network was included to assess deep learning performance on time-series data. Our study enrolled 427 patients with 498 treatment records. The soft-voting ensemble algorithm achieved an optimal predictive performance with an AUC of 0.839 (95% CI 0.786-0.889) for the all-features model, while logistic regression using common features achieved an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI 0.704-0.825), outperforming ROX and mROX indices. Incorporating blood gas analysis features improved the non-invasive model's performance by 0.104. This study introduces a machine learning model integrated with a dynamic real-time alert system for predicting HFNC treatment failure in AHRF patients, demonstrating improved performance over traditional indices in internal validation and showing potential for decision support in select healthcare settings.
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.