ArticleScientific reports2026
Association between baseline pulse pressure and prognosis in critically ill patients: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate the association between baseline pulse pressure (PP) and mortality in critically ill patients. This cohort study analyzed 22,035 ICU patients from the MIMIC-IV database. Baseline PP was defined as the first recorded value after admission. Outcomes included in-hospital, 180-day, and 365-day all-cause mortality. Feature importance was assessed using XGBoost. The relationship between PP and mortality was modeled with smooth curve fitting and threshold analysis. Multivariable logistic regression and survival analyses were performed to compare mortality risk across PP groups. Subgroup analyses examined effect modifications. The restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis validated the robustness of the results. PP holds certain clinical significance in predicting ICU outcomes. A U-shaped relationship was identified, with an inflection point at 49 mmHg (95% CI 46-51). Patients were categorized into three groups: < 46, 46-51, and ≥ 51 mmHg. Using the 46-51 mmHg group as reference, both lower and higher PP groups showed significantly increased risks of in-hospital (P < 0.05) and long-term mortality (P < 0.05). Significant interactions were observed in the elderly and septic subgroups. RMST analysis further confirmed the stability of the results. Baseline PP nonlinearly predicts mortality risk in ICU patients, with the optimal range being 46-51 mmHg. This association is stronger in elderly and septic patients.
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.