ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Early prediction of vasopressor initiation in ICU sepsis patients using an interpretable EHR-based ML model.
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.
- Vasopressor Use Among Adults With Sepsis in Uganda and Rwanda: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.Critical care explorations · 2026Article
- Predicting Future Organ Support Needs Using Longitudinal Emergency Department Data: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Research square · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly identification of septic patients who will require vasopressor support could provide a critical window for hemodynamic optimisation, yet current bedside cues often appear only when shock is imminent.
objectiveWe aimed to develop and validate an interpretable electronic health record (EHR)-based machine-learning model that predicts vasopressor initiation several hours before therapy in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with sepsis.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study using the MIMIC-IV v2.2 database (2008-2019). We screened adult Sepsis-3 ICU stays and labeled the patients who commenced continuous vasopressor infusions 6 to 48 hours after admission as cases; we defined controls as sepsis patients with ICU stays ≥48 hours and no vasopressor exposure. We performed one to one nearest neighbour matching on age, sex, Charlson index, SOFA score with the cardiovascular component removed, weight, and early lactate/hematocrit availability to minimise confounding. We engineered demographic, physiological, and laboratory features measured from -6 to -2 hours relative to vasopressor initiation (or a matched time point) under multiple parameter combinations. We trained seven algorithms with Monte Carlo cross validation and evaluated performance on an independent validation set. We assessed model interpretability with Shapley values.
resultsWe analyzed 1,539 cases and 1,431 controls; the independent validation set comprised 751 stays (~25%). A Random Forest classifier achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.72-0.79), a sensitivity of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.69-0.78), a specificity of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.60-0.70), a precision of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.66-0.74) and a F1 score of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.68-0.75) at the Youden's index threshold. The model outperformed simple surrogates-mean blood pressure (AUROC, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.64-0.72) and modified shock index (AUROC, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.62-0.69)-and a reproduced bidirectional LSTM (AUROC, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.70-0.77). Key predictors included declining mean blood pressure at - 2 to -4 hours, elevated lactate ( > 2.5 mmol/L), and hematocrit outside 30-37%. Model alerts would occur two to four hours before vasopressor initiation, providing actionable lead time for clinicians.
conclusionsThis proof-of-concept study shows that routinely collected ICU data can predict impending vasopressor initiation with clinically interpretable outputs. However, these findings reflect internal validation only and should be interpreted with caution. External validation on multi-center retrospective cohorts, followed by silent-mode prospective evaluation, is warranted to confirm generalisability and to assess the real-world impact on time-to-vasopressor, fluid balance, and 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.