ArticleDigital health
Interpretable machine learning prediction models for 28-day mortality in critically ill patients with atrial fibrillation and acute kidney injury.
Article in Digital health. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The study aims to develop and externally validate interpretable machine learning (ML) models for predicting 28-day mortality in critically ill patients with coexisting atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute kidney injury (AKI). Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using two large public databases, Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) and eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD). Critically ill adults with both AF and AKI were included. In MIMIC-IV, patients were randomly divided into a training set and an internal test set for model development and evaluation. Nine ML algorithms were compared, and the best-performing model was further validated in the external eICU-CRD cohort. Model performance was primarily assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Interpretability was examined with the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) method, and an online risk calculator was developed to support clinical application. Results: A total of 11,510 patients from MIMIC-IV and 2565 patients from eICU-CRD were included. The GBM model achieved the best predictive performance, with an AUC of 0.856 (95% CI: 0.839-0.873) in the internal test cohort and 0.761 (95% CI: 0.740-0.783) in external validation. SHAP analysis identified anion gap, heart rate, and age as the most influential predictors of 28-day mortality. The developed online application enables individualized risk stratification, supporting clinical decision-making. Conclusions: We developed and externally validated interpretable ML models for 28-day mortality prediction in ICU patients with AF and AKI. These models may enhance prognostic accuracy, facilitate earlier intervention, and support clinical management in this high-risk population.
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.