ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2026
Improving mortality prediction in critically ill cancer patients with a multidimensional machine learning model.
Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrognostic assessment in critically ill cancer patients is challenging due to the suboptimal performance of traditional severity scores. We developed and validated machine learning models to provide an objective triage and risk-stratification tool at admission, identifying patients who require high-intensity organ support.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study including 997 critically ill cancer patients admitted to the ICU. Forty-six demographic, oncologic, physiological, laboratory, and therapeutic variables collected at ICU admission were used to train and validate ML models. Eight algorithms were evaluated using stratified cross-validation with feature selection and hyperparameter optimization. Model performance was assessed using discrimination, calibration, and classification metrics. Model interpretability was explored using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP).
resultsCatBoost achieved the best performance for ICU mortality prediction (AUROC 0.94), showing excellent discrimination and calibration, and outperforming other ML models. Prediction of 30-day survival was less accurate (best AUROC 0.74), reflecting the influence of post-ICU factors not captured at admission. Key predictors of ICU mortality included severity of organ dysfunction, therapeutic objectives, vasopressor and methylene blue use, SAPS III score, lactate, platelet count, and blood urea nitrogen. For 30-day survival, baseline physiological status, admission type, SAPS III, lactate, creatinine, age, and body mass index were most relevant. SHAP analysis demonstrated that acute physiology and organ dysfunction, rather than cancer diagnosis alone, primarily drove short-term outcomes.
conclusionsML-based models, particularly CatBoost, outperformed traditional tools in predicting ICU mortality. Within this oncologic cohort, short-term outcomes were driven primarily by acute physiological derangements rather than specific cancer characteristics. These results support using ML-based risk stratification as an objective triage tool at admission. External validation is warranted to confirm generalizability before clinical integration.
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.