ArticleDigital health
Construction and validation of a mortality prediction model for patients with sepsis-associated encephalopathy: Interpretable machine learning approach.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Sepsis-associated encephalopathy (SAE) is a prevalent complication among critically ill sepsis patients with poor outcomes. This study aimed to develop and validate an interpretable machine learning model for predicting mortality in SAE patients to support clinical decision-making. Methods: The study utilized two large critical care databases: the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV, version 3.1) database for model construction and internal validation, and the eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD, version 2.0.1) for external validation. The XGBoost model was trained to predict patient mortality at 28 and 90 days after ICU admission, and performance was assessed by indicators including the area under the curve (AUC). To improve the interpretability of the model, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis revealed key features affecting prognosis at both population and individual levels. Results: A total of 4922 SAE patients were included, with 39 variables selected for model development. The XGBoost model performed best, with internal validation AUCs of 0.930 (95% CI: 0.917-0.942) and 0.906 (95% CI: 0.891-0.919) for 28-day and 90-day predictions, respectively. Notably, external validation achieved AUCs of 0.771 (95% CI: 0.748-0.792) and 0.759 (95% CI: 0.736-0.782), respectively. The Shapley value analytical framework was systematically applied to decode feature importance patterns and illuminate individual prognostic determinants. Conclusions: Validated across two large critical care databases, the interpretable XGBoost model serves as a reliable tool for mortality prediction in SAE patients, which may help clinicians identify high-risk SAE patients early and optimize management to improve patient outcomes.
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.