ArticleDigital health
Interpretable machine learning for early prediction of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients with acute pancreatitis.
Article in Digital health. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a global health issue that can lead to acute kidney injury (AKI), especially in critically ill patients. Timely identification of AP-AKI is vital for early intervention. This study aimed to develop and validate a machine learning (ML) model to predict AP-AKI in ICU patients. Methods: Data were collected from Shandong Provincial Hospital (training/internal validation) and the MIMIC-IV database (external validation). Thirty-three clinical variables within 24 hours of ICU admission were selected using LASSO regression. Six ML algorithms were tested, with model performance evaluated through discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility. SHAP analysis was used for interpretability, and a web-based interface was developed for clinical use. Results: Among 317 patients in the internal cohort, 219 (69.1%) developed AKI. A 7-variable Random Forest model showed the best performance with AUCs of 0.970 (training), 0.811 (internal validation), and 0.820 (external validation). Key predictors included neutrophil percentage, platelet-to-neutrophil ratio, creatinine, APTT, lactate, glucose, and vasopressor use. A friendly user interface has been developed for clinician use. Conclusion: The ML-based model demonstrated strong predictive performance for AP-AKI and good generalizability. SHAP analysis enhanced model transparency, supporting clinical decision-making and early intervention.
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.