ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2026
Development and evaluation of a machine learning-based risk prediction model for enteral feeding intolerance in sepsis patients.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early detection and prediction of enteral feeding intolerance (EFI) are essential for effective management of septic patients. This study seeks to develop an interpretable machine learning (ML) model for predicting EFI in septic patients. Methods: Data were collected from septic patients admitted to the intensive care unit and receiving enteral nutrition (EN) at a tertiary hospital in Shandong Province between January 2023 and July 2025. A retrospective cohort was randomly divided into training and validation sets in a 7:3 ratio. Feature selection was performed using univariate analysis and binary logistic regression. 5 independent ML models were developed and evaluated based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and F1 score. The Shapley Additive Explanation (SHAP) method was applied to interpret the predictive model. Results: The study included 549 septic patients, with an EFI incidence of 34.6%. 6 key features were selected for model development: age, APACHE II score, albumin levels, receipt of continuous renal replacement therapy, EN start time, and intra-abdominal pressure. Among the models, the RF model demonstrated the best performance, with an AUROC of 0.891, accuracy of 0.830, F1 score of 0.771, specificity of 0.869, and sensitivity of 0.763. SHAP analysis identified albumin levels as a protective factor for EFI in septic patients. Conclusion: This model can serve as a tool to identify high-risk individuals with EFI among septic patients, facilitating clinical healthcare providers in delivering scientific and individualized EN therapy to 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.