ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Explainable machine learning for postoperative respiratory failure prediction in open-heart surgery patients - a study based on the MIMIC-IV database.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative respiratory failure (PRF) is a severe complication after open-heart surgery, associated with increased mortality and prolonged ICU stays. While machine learning (ML) models have shown promise in predicting PRF, existing models often rely on fragmented data and lack interpretability. This study aimed to develop an interpretable ML model for early prediction of PRF using data from the first 24 h of ICU admission.
methodsWe analyzed data from the MIMIC-IV database, focusing on patients undergoing open-heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Patients with preoperative respiratory failure or significant missing data were excluded. Missing values (< 30%) were imputed using Predictive Mean Matching. Twelve features were selected through LASSO regression. We compared the performance of eight ML models using AUROC, AUPRC, and other metrics. The optimal model was further interpreted using Shapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP).
resultsOf the 4,488 patients, 339 (7.6%) developed PRF. The Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM) model demonstrated the best performance with an AUROC of 0.808, AUPRC of 0.369, and Youden's index of 0.479, indicating balanced sensitivity (0.703) and specificity (0.776). SHAP analysis revealed that key predictors included minimum ionized calcium levels, vasopressor score, and central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO₂), with their impact varying across patient risk categories.
conclusionThe GBM model, selected for its balanced performance across discrimination, calibration, and validation stability, provides a promising tool for early PRF risk stratification. The use of SHAP analysis enhances the interpretability of the model, highlighting the role of hemodynamic and metabolic markers in predicting PRF, thus improving clinical understanding and decision-making.
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.