ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Early prediction of ARDS caused by non-pulmonary sepsis based on machine learning algorithms of inflammatory indicators and blood gas parameters.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common complication in patients with non-pulmonary sepsis. Early identification and prediction of the occurrence of ARDS in non-pulmonary sepsis patients are of vital importance for timely intervention and improving the prognosis of these patients. Materials and methods: 482 patients were included in this study. The Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) method was employed to identify the key variables related to the prognosis of sepsis. The selected variables were used to construct nine different machine learning prediction models. To evaluate the performance of the model, we employed the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve, calibration curve, and Decision Curve Analysis (DCA). The clinical significance of the model was further analyzed through Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) analysis. Results: Through the RFE method, the final selected 11 variables. In the training set and test set, the AUC of the LightGBM model was 0.954 (95% CI: 0.933-0.973) and 0.923 (95% CI: 0.864-0.967) respectively. In this study, the calibration curve of the LightGBM model was close to the diagonal, indicating that its probability predictions were relatively reliable. In the DCA curves, the LightGBM model consistently maintained the highest net gain within the threshold range of 0-0.4, indicating LightGBM has greater clinical practical value. Through SHAP analysis, it was found that the SOFA score, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, lactate level, creatinine, and SAPS II score were the five most important features in the model prediction. Conclusion: In this study, a machine learning model based on inflammatory indicators and blood gas parameters was successfully developed and validated to predict the risk of ARDS in patients with non-pulmonary sepsis.
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.