ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2026
Explainable AI for mortality prediction: a comparative study using the MIMIC-III dataset.
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.
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
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
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.