ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2025
Development and external validation of a machine learning model to predict high flow nasal cannula failure.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 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.
- 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
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
Abstract
introductionHigh-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an important treatment option for acute hypoxic respiratory failure and can improve outcomes. However, patients on a prolonged duration of HFNC have worse clinical outcomes and increased mortality. It is difficult to determine which patients will fail HFNC support at the time of initiation. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does an externally validated machine learning model predict HFNC failure with greater discrimination compared with the ROX Index? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsAdult inpatients hospitalised at seven hospitals in four health systems who received HFNC were eligible for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they were intubated before first HFNC initiation, experienced the primary outcome <1 hour after HFNC initiation, unable to calculate the ROX Index or began HFNC or experienced intubation or death in a location other than the studied locations. A gradient boosting model was used to predict the primary composite outcome of intubation or death within the next 24 hours at the time of HFNC initiation. The model was compared with the previously published ROX index.
resultsOf the 11 618 patients included in the study, 6787 were in the training cohort and 4831 were in the testing cohort. The primary outcome occurred in 1410 of 11 618 (12.1%) patients at 24 hours. In external validation, the area under the operating curve of the model for predicting HFNC failure within 24 hours was 0.760, which was significantly higher than the ROX index (0.696; p value <0.001). This improvement in performance was consistent at all studied time periods, including 2, 6 and 12 hours after HFNC initiation.
interpretationIn this study, we developed and externally validated a novel machine learning algorithm that outperforms the ROX Index in predicting failure of HFNC in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure. This model could augment clinical decision-making when treating patients with this morbid condition.
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.