Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41748202›Full record

ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2026

Explainable AI for mortality prediction: a comparative study using the MIMIC-III dataset.

Niusha Shafiabady, Dave Akume, Mohammadreza Haghighat, Fareed Ud Din, Kabir Sattarshetty, Asif Karim, Jianlong Zhou, Ethar Alsharaydeh

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Niusha ShafiabadyWomen in AI for Social Good Lab & Discipline of IT, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Niusha.Shafiabady@acu.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7668-8524
Dave AkumeCharles Darwin University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Mohammadreza HaghighatDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran (the Islamic Republic of).ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-7771-1250
Fareed Ud DinUniversity of New England School of Science and Technology, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia.
Kabir SattarshettyCharles Darwin University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Asif KarimCharles Darwin University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jianlong ZhouUniversity of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ethar AlsharaydehWestern Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPredicting mortality is vital for tailoring treatments, improving care and reducing costs. Machine learning (ML) has shown strong potential, often outperforming traditional severity-of-illness scoring systems in intensive care units (ICUs). However, the black-box nature of ML limits adoption. This study evaluates the accuracy of several ML algorithms on the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC-III) dataset and applies explainable artificial intelligence to identify variables influencing ICU mortality.

methodsA retrospective cohort of 600 MIMIC-III patient records was analysed. ML algorithms tested included support vector machine (SVM), K-nearest neighbour (KNN), decision trees (DT), gradient boosting (GB), random forests (RF), Naive Bayes (NB), logistic regression (LR) and extra trees (ET). Models were assessed with threefold cross-validation using F1 Score, sensitivity, specificity, confusion matrix and accuracy. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) was applied to explain key factors influencing predictions.

resultsAmong the eight algorithms evaluated, ET and GB achieved the highest accuracy (98.33% and 98.23%, respectively) with F1-scores above 96%. SVM also performed strongly (97.50% accuracy, F1=94.34%). RF and DT yielded accuracies of 95.00% and 94.17%, respectively. NB reached 96.67% accuracy with 100% recall, while KNN and LR showed lower discriminative performance (76.67% and 75.83% accuracy, respectively).SHAP, LIME and Shapley values consistently identified hypertension, tumours and endocrine and digestive disease as the leading predictors of mortality. DISCUSSION: Findings highlight ML's potential to optimise ICU decision-making and support clinicians. However, reliance on retrospective data remains a limitation, and clinical validation is required.

conclusionML algorithms are highly effective for mortality prediction, and explainability is key for trust and adoption. When combined, accuracy and interpretability enable ML to safely support informed ICU decisions and improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHospital MortalityIntensive Care UnitsMachine LearningAlgorithmsBayes TheoremBoosting Machine Learning AlgorithmsClassification AlgorithmsDecision TreesHumansPrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning ModelsRandom ForestRetrospective StudiesSupport Vector MachineArtificial intelligenceDecision Support Systems, ClinicalMachine LearningPatient Care

Identifiers

PMID41748202
PMCPMC12959059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.