ArticleDigital health
Development and deployment of an interpretable stacking ensemble model for predicting in-hospital mortality in ICU patients with chronic kidney disease and sepsis.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop an interpretable stacking ensemble model for predicting in-hospital mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with CKD and sepsis and to deploy it as a web-based tool for bedside clinical use. Methods: Data were extracted from the MIMIC-IV 3.0 database and split into training and test sets at a 7:3 ratio. Feature selection was performed by combining the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression with the Boruta algorithm. Eight machine learning (ML) models were trained and optimized via ten-fold cross-validation and grid search. The two models with the highest area under the curve (AUC) in the training set were combined using a stacking ensemble strategy. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were applied to improve interpretability. Model performance was compared with the SOFA score. Results: A total of 5344 ICU patients with CKD and sepsis were included, with an in-hospital mortality rate of 19.1%. After feature selection, 16 variables were retained. In the training set, XGBoost and LightGBM performed best. The stacking model achieved an AUC of 0.757 on the test set, outperforming SOFA (AUC = 0.668). SHAP analysis identified age, Acute Physiology Score III, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, and respiratory rate as the top predictors. The model was also deployed as a publicly accessible web application. Conclusion: The stacking ensemble model demonstrated good discriminatory performance and interpretability for predicting in-hospital mortality in ICU patients with CKD and sepsis. Its web-based deployment provides a convenient platform for early risk assessment, although external validation is needed to confirm its broader applicability.
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.