ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Explainable machine learning model for early prediction of ICU death in chronic heart failure with pulmonary infection.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and validate a machine learning model for predicting ICU mortality in CHF patients with pulmonary infection.
methodsClinical data were extracted from the MIMIC-IV database, and ICU mortality within 15 days was defined as the primary endpoint. Patients were stratified into HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF based on left ventricular ejection fraction. Six models were constructed-logistic regression, random forest, light gradient boosting machine, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), multilayer perceptron, and k-nearest neighbor-and optimized using cross-validated grid search. Predictive performance was evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, AUC, Brier score, Youden index, and calibration slope. Model interpretability was assessed using SHAP and LIME. External validation was conducted using the eICU-CRD database.
resultsA total of 1308 patients were included, with an ICU mortality of 15.98%. Among all models, XGBoost achieved the best balance of discrimination and calibration (AUC 0.968; calibration slope 1.070), and retained useful but attenuated discrimination in external testing (AUC 0.718). SHAP analysis identified lactic acid, white blood cell count, prior diagnosis of hypertension, serum potassium, and pre-existing diabetes mellitus as the five most influential predictors of the outcome. Subgroup analyses further demonstrated distinct pathophysiological trajectories associated with mortality: HFrEF predominantly exhibited hemodynamic instability, impaired tissue perfusion, and electrolyte disturbances; in contrast, HFpEF were more frequently associated with chronic metabolic-inflammatory dysregulation and coagulopathy.
conclusionThe XGBoost-based model provides interpretable prediction of ICU mortality in CHF patients with pulmonary infection. Phenotype-specific interpretability analysis further suggested that mortality risk mechanisms differ between heart failure subtypes, supporting more individualized risk assessment and management in critically ill CHF 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.