ArticleScientific reports2026
Respiratory physiology after resupination following prone ventilation to predict 28-day mortality in mechanically ventilated patients: a machine learning analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinical significance of resupination parameters following prone positioning remains largely unknown. This study employed machine learning to predict the survival of patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) by analyzing oxygenation and respiratory mechanics after resupination. Data were extracted from the COVID-Predict Dutch Data Warehouse. Patients receiving MV who underwent the supine–prone–supine sequence were selected, and the variables related to respiratory physiology within 4 h before proning and after resupination were recorded. Machine learning models were trained on the features selected using LASSO regression to predict the 28-day mortality. Patients who did not survive (157/522, 30.1%) had lower PaO2/FiO2 values, higher ventilatory ratios, increased physiological dead space, higher driving pressure, and lower static and dynamic lung compliance values at resupination. The predictive performance of the individual clinical parameters for 28-day mortality was generally modest, and FiO2, PaO2/FiO2, physiological dead space, and dynamic lung compliance were the best predictors of mortality. Overall, XGBoost showed the best recall (0.732) and maintained the highest AUC (0.719), while its F1-score (0.500) was the best for predicting mortality despite a low precision (0.380). Survival after prone positioning in patients receiving MV can be stratified by physiological responses after resupination.
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.