ArticleDigital health
Predicting blood transfusion after ICU admission in five databases: A comparison of three machine learning paradigms.
Article in Digital health. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this retrospective study is to compare three learning approaches for blood transfusion (BT) prediction after intensive care unit (ICU) admission: local learning (LL), federated learning (FL), and centralized learning (CL) across five ICU databases (eICU Collaborative Research Database, Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV, High-Resolution Intensive Care Unit Dataset, Amsterdam University Medical Center Database, University Hospital of Augsburg). Methods: As machine learning model we used XGBoost and included 15 clinical variables. The prediction task consists of a 3-h observation window, followed by a 2-h prediction window. We evaluated the models using internal and external validation with area under the receiver-operator curve, area under the precision-recall curve, PPV, Brier score and F1 score. Results: CL consistently outperformed FL and LL in both internal validation (AUPRC range: 0.73-0.95 (CL) vs 0.63-0.96 (FL) and 0.69-0.96 (LL)) and external validation (AUPRC range: 0.61-0.89 (CL) vs 0.45-0.91 (FL) and 0.37-0.90 (LL)). FL showed variable performance across datasets. Conclusions: The complexity of the multivariable clinical prediction of BTs may create substantial challenges for FL effectiveness, particularly under high data heterogeneity conditions that are common in healthcare.
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.