ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2026
Short-term risk stratification using parallel admission and reassessment features in PICU patients with infection.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 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
Objective: To develop and validate an early risk prediction model for short-term major adverse events (MAE) in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admissions with infection using admission (M0) and early reassessment (M1) features. Methods: Using the PhysioNet Paediatric Intensive Care database, 684 infection-related PICU admissions were included in the final landmark-defined analytic cohort. The primary outcome was 72-hour MAE, defined as new vasoactive drug use, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death within 72 h after PICU admission. For the primary M0 + M1 analysis, prediction targeted events occurring after completion of the reassessment window. Features were extracted from M0 (0-6 h) and M1 (12-36 h). LASSO, random forest (RF), XGBoost, and a stacked ensemble were compared. Performance was assessed in an internal test cohort and a de-identified timestamp ordered validation cohort using AUC, PR-AUC, calibration metrics, Brier score, and decision curve analysis. Results: Among the candidate models, RF showed the most favorable overall numerical performance. In the internal test set, RF achieved an AUC of 0.724 and a PR-AUC of 0.741. In the de-identified timestamp-ordered validation cohort, the corresponding values were 0.718 and 0.766. Calibration was good in the internal test set but attenuated in the later cohort, suggesting the need for recalibration. SHAP analysis indicated complementary contributions of M0 and M1 features. Conclusions: A parallel M0 + M1 framework showed moderate discrimination and potential utility for reassessment-oriented early risk stratification in infection-related PICU admissions. Further external validation and recalibration are needed before broader application.
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.