Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41180106›Full record

ArticleJournal of intensive medicine2025

ICU readmission and mortality risk prediction: Generalizability of a multi-hospital model.

Tariq A Dam, Daan de Bruin, Giovanni Cinà, Patrick J Thoral, Paul W G Elbers, Corstiaan A den Uil, Reinier F Crane

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of intensive medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Tariq A DamDepartment of Intensive Care, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Daan de BruinPacmed, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Giovanni CinàPacmed, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Patrick J ThoralDepartment of Intensive Care, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Paul W G ElbersDepartment of Intensive Care, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Corstiaan A den UilDepartment of Intensive Care, Maasstad Ziekenhuis, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Reinier F CraneDepartment of Intensive Care, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Inadvertent intensive care unit (ICU) readmission is associated with longer length of stay and increased mortality. Conversely, delayed ICU discharge may represent inefficient use of resources. To better inform discharge timing, several hospitals have implemented machine learning models to predict readmission risk following discharge. However, these models are typically created locally and may not generalize well to other hospitals or patient populations. A single multi-hospital-based model might provide more accurate predictions and insight into features that are applicable across diverse clinical settings. Methods: This study involved a retrospective multi-center cohort from one academic hospital (Amsterdam University Medical Center [AUMC]) and two large teaching hospitals (Maasstad Ziekenhuis [MSZ] and OLVG). Data from the latter two hospitals were combined to create a pooled model, which was tested on the academic hospital dataset. Data relating to all adult ICU patients were included, starting from the implementation of the electronic health record system until the commencement of model development for each hospital. An XGBoost model was trained to predict a composite outcome of readmission or mortality within 7 days and an autoencoder was used as an out-of-distribution (OOD) detector to capture dataset heterogeneity. Results: In total, 44,837 patients were available for analysis across the three hospitals. The average readmission rates were 7.1 %, 6.9 %, and 5.9 % for MSZ, OLVG, and AUMC, respectively. Performance evaluation of the local models on AUMC data demonstrated weighted area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 69.7 %±0.8 %, 70.5 %±0.5 %, and 76.5 %±1.9 %, respectively, whereas the pooled model achieved a weighted area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 71.1 %±0.7 %. The difference between internal and external performance was reduced when cardiac surgery patients were excluded. The key features across models were albumin levels and the use of oxygen therapy. Discussion: A single, multi-hospital-based model performed comparably on external datasets, especially when cardiac surgery patients were excluded. However, when applied externally, model predictions risk being uncalibrated for specific patient subgroups and require careful calibration before implementation. While external models were more stable than local ones over OOD scores, their performance was comparable after excluding cardiac surgery patients. Although pooling data marginally improved performance on external datasets, the incorporation of data from diverse hospitals is likely to provide greater benefits.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceIntensive careMortalityPatient dischargePatient readmission

Identifiers

PMID41180106
PMCPMC12572862

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.