ArticleInternational wound journal2026
Development and Internal Validation of a Gradient Boosting Model for Pressure Injury Risk in the ICU.
Article in International wound journal, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pressure injury (PI) is common in the ICU and not well captured by single-risk tools such as the Braden scale. We aimed to develop and internally validate a machine-learning model to predict new-onset PI using routinely collected ICU data. This retrospective single-centre cohort included adult ICU patients with length of stay ≥ 48 h (2018-2023). The primary outcome was new-onset PI during ICU stay. Candidate predictors were pre-specified: minimum albumin, maximum lactate, SOFA, APACHE II, first recorded Braden score, age, BMI, a nutrition score and treatment indicators. Missing values were imputed (median/mode). A gradient boosting model (GBM) was evaluated with stratified 3-fold cross-validation; a random forest (RF) served as a benchmark (stratified 70/30 train-test split). Discrimination (AUC) was primary; calibration, Brier score, decision-curve analysis (DCA) and feature importance were secondary. Logistic regression quantified independent associations. Among included ICU stays, 14.6% developed PI. On multivariable analysis, higher lactate, lower albumin, lower Braden scores, older age, CRRT, prone positioning, enteral nutrition and analgesic exposure were associated with increased PI risk, whereas sedatives showed an inverse association. The GBM achieved AUC≈0.69 with acceptable calibration and net clinical benefit across thresholds commonly used in preventive workflows (≈0.10-0.50). Single markers or simple combinations displayed only modest discrimination. A GBM built from routine ICU data provided moderate, well-calibrated discrimination for predicting new-onset PI and demonstrated decision-relevant net benefit. The model can complement Braden-based screening by refining risk stratification and prioritising intensified prevention for patients most likely to benefit. External validation and prospective evaluation are warranted.
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.