ArticleDigital health
Multi-parameter prediction of extubation failure using spontaneous breathing trial and post-spontaneous breathing trial rest period data.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: While extubation failure in critically ill patients is a significant challenge in intensive care units (ICUs), traditional predictors, such as the rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI), offer limited accuracy. This study aimed to develop a machine-learning model using data collected during a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) and the rest period after SBT to improve the prediction of extubation failure. Methods: This retrospective and single-center cohort study analyzed data from 413 extubation cases involving 372 patients across both medical and surgical ICUs. Vital signs and ventilatory parameters were collected during the SBT and post-SBT rest period. A light gradient-boosting machine (LGBM) algorithm was employed, incorporating features derived from these vital signs. The model's performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), sensitivity, and specificity. Results: Among the included cases, 11.01% experienced extubation failure. The LGBM model, which integrated data from both SBT and post-SBT rest periods, along with RSBI, achieved the highest performance (AUROC: 0.789, AUPRC: 0.451). Key predictors included ICU duration, RSBI, and respiratory rate during SBT. Models utilizing only SBT or rest period data individually demonstrated significantly lower predictive power compared to those incorporating both time intervals (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Multi-parameter data from the SBT and post-SBT rest period provide dynamic insights into extubation readiness. The developed machine-learning model demonstrates modest improvement over traditional metrics such as RSBI and may serve as a complementary tool to support extubation decision-making.
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.