ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
AI prediction of extubation success within a novel three-stage liberation framework: development, validation, and implementation of the Stage-3 model.
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.
- Phenotype-based modeling of postoperative ventilatory liberation failure: A dynamic mechanistic framework for precision perioperative medicine.Journal of anesthesia and translational medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: We propose a three-stage liberation decision framework (Stage-1 readiness, Stage-2 SBT success, Stage-3 extubation). While prior tools emphasize earlier stages, Stage-3-deciding whether to remove the tube after SBT-remains under-modeled. This study develops an AI model to predict successful extubation (no reintubation or non-invasive ventilation within 48 h) using routinely collected electronic medical record data, eliminating the need for additional manual bedside measurements. Methods: Single-center retrospective analysis including 5,202 adults who underwent elective extubation after SBT success. Seven algorithms (Random Forest, LightGBM, XGBoost, Logistic Regression, multilayer perceptron, Voting, Stacking) were trained and evaluated by accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC; interpretability used SHAP; traditional indices (RSBI, etc.) served as comparators. We also implemented a working web-based prototype that verifies the model's usability and real-world feasibility, providing a foundation for future prospective clinical evaluation. Results: LightGBM performed best (accuracy 0.797, sensitivity 0.800, specificity 0.763, PPV 0.977, NPV 0.231, AUC 0.861). XGBoost and Voting showed AUC 0.850 with slightly lower accuracies (0.783, 0.771); Stacking AUC 0.829; Random Forest AUC 0.818; MLP and Logistic Regression AUC 0.785 each. SHAP analysis identified SpO₂/FiO₂, department, bilateral lower-limb muscle strength, and dynamic compliance (Cdyn) as most influential predictors of extubation success. Discussion: Within a three-stage liberation framework, a Stage-3 extubation-focused AI model-particularly LightGBM-outperformed traditional indices and offers explainable, EMR-based predictors to support timely tube removal. A web-based prototype has been developed for future prospective validation.
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.