ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2026
Machine learning for prediction of in-ICU mortality in sepsis: an observational study using the MIMIC IV database.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of the study was to identify the key risk factors influencing in-intensive care unit (ICU) mortality of patients with sepsis and develop prognosis prediction models for culture-positive sepsis (CPS) and culture-negative sepsis (CNS) patients. Material and methods: Data were extracted from the MIMIC-IV database, which included 9288 patients with sepsis. The whole sample was divided into CPS (6622 patients) and CNS groups (2666 patients). We established six machine learning models - DT, RF, NB, XGB, GBDT, and NNET - to predict in-ICU death for all study samples, as well as for CPS and CNS subgroups. Model performance was assessed using AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values were used to explain the effect of variables on model results. Results: The in-ICU mortality rate was 54.58% for the whole study sample; the difference in in-ICU mortality between the CPS (55.19%) and CNS (53.04%) groups was not statistically significant. The main significant influential factors identified included Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), number of days in hospital, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), older age, and total bilirubin (TBil). The XGB model performed best in the overall sample (AUC = 0.782), while the GBDT model was most effective for the CPS group (AUC = 0.7813) and the CNS group (AUC = 0.7582). Conclusions: This study identified key risk factors for in-ICU death in patients with sepsis and highlighted differences in clinical characteristics between patients with CPS and CNS. These findings may contribute to the development of personalized treatment strategies and risk assessment, thereby improving the prognosis of septic patients, especially patients with CNS.
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.