ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025
Prognostic Value of the Charlson Comorbidity Index for Mortality and Machine Learning-Based Prediction in Critically Ill Patients with Paralytic Ileus: Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Outcomes and Risk Factors of Healthcare-Associated Infections in Surgical Wards: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The burden of paralytic ileus (PI) in the intensive care unit remains high, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) is strongly associated with the prognosis of several acute and chronic diseases. However, evidence specifically evaluating the prognostic value of CCI in intensive care unit patients with PI remains limited. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the association between CCI and clinical prognosis in critically ill patients with PI. Methods: In this study, data were extracted from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (version 2.2), a large, publicly available critical care database, and used to determine the optimal cut-off value of CCI for predicting mortality in patients with PI using the receiver operating characteristic curves, and the association between CCI and mortality was evaluated using Cox regression and restricted cubic spline analysis. A machine learning (ML) prediction model was then constructed to predict hospital mortality by combining CCI and other clinical characteristics. Results: The study included 863 patients with PI (age: median 65.4, IQR 54.6-75.5 y; male: 575/863, 66.6%). The receiver operating characteristic curve identified an optimal cut-off value of 4.5 for CCI. The multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that compared to the lowest CCI quartile, patients with elevated CCI levels were more likely to have elevated hospital (Q4: hazard ratio [HR] 2.447, 95% CI 1.210-4.951), 28-day (Q4: HR 3.891, 95% CI 1.956-7.740), and 90-day (Q4: HR 3.994, 95% CI 2.224-7.173) all-cause mortality were significantly associated with elevated CCI levels; however, the association with ICU mortality (Q4: HR 1.892, 95% CI 0.653-5.480) was weak. Among the 11 ML models, the light gradient boosting machine model performed best, with internal validation results showing an area under the curve of 0.811, a geometric mean of 0.670, and an F1-score of 0.895. Conclusions: The CCI is an important predictor of hospital, 28-day, and 90-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with PI, and the optimal threshold is 4.5. ML models, including the CCI, show high accuracy in predicting hospital mortality, and the CCI occupies an important position in the model. This suggests that the CCI helps to identify high-risk patients, supports clinical decision-making, and improves prognosis.
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.