ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Development and validation of interpretable machine learning models to predict intensive care unit outcomes in patients on hemodialysis: a multicenter study.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Model Development for IC/BPS and Its Subtypes Using Clinical Indicators, Urinary Biomarkers, and Single-Cell Transcriptomic Analysis.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2026Article
- Translational Potential and Explainability of Artificial Intelligence-Based Clinical Decision Support for Adults in Intensive Care: A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
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
backgroundHemodialysis patients are at high risk for ICU admission due to elevated mortality, cardiovascular disease, and infection rates. Traditional ICU scoring systems (e.g., APACHE-II, SOFA) demonstrate limited accuracy in this population. This study aimed to identify key risk factors and develop interpretable machine learning (ML) models for predicting ICU outcomes to enable early intervention.
methodsThis multicenter study analyzed data from three cohorts: The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (n = 248), MIMIC-IV (n = 769), and eICU-CRD (n = 1,878). Primary outcome was all-cause ICU mortality; secondary outcomes were cardiovascular and infection-related mortality. Thirteen ML algorithms and ensemble models were applied to 113 clinical variables collected within 24 h of ICU admission. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and benchmarked against existing ICU scoring systems. We employed SHapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) analysis to enhance interpretability.
resultsKey predictors numbered 6 (cardiovascular mortality), 11 (infection-related mortality), and 25 (all-cause mortality). Ensemble machine learning models, trained on the SYSU cohort, were initially screened by performance (8-fold cross-validation AUC ≥ 0.80) and evaluated in the eICU selection cohort, with the top-performing models subsequently validated in the external MIMIC-IV cohort. In the external validation, NeuralNetC achieved the highest AUC of 0.847 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.806-0.885) for all-cause mortality among the ensemble models, outperforming ICU scoring systems. ExtraTreesA performed best for infection-related mortality (AUCs: 0.880; 95% CI 0.852-0.906), and NeuralNetD for cardiovascular mortality (AUCs: 0.790; 95% CI 0.733-0.844). An online predictive platform was developed to facilitate clinical application.
conclusionML models provided high predictive accuracy for ICU mortality in hemodialysis patients, facilitating early identification of high-risk individuals and supporting targeted interventions. The online platform promotes clinical translation for intensive care decision-making.
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.