ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2026
Continuous imputation of blood gas and metabolic panel laboratory values in the intensive care unit using machine learning.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 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
We developed machine learning (ML) models to perform continuous hourly prediction of arterial blood gas (ABG) and basic metabolic panel (BMP) laboratory values in critically ill patients. We evaluated its impact on prediction of the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT). We compared the performance of the deep learning models using laboratory variables imputed hourly by our ML estimators versus models using laboratory variables imputed by a previous-value baseline. Our ML model incorporated various predictors, including previous laboratory values, administered medications, clinical events, fluid input/output, hemodynamics, and ventilator settings. Accuracy of laboratory imputations were compared using mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean squared error (RMSE). We trained bi-directional long short-term memory models (Bi-LSTM) to predict need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) that differed only in how laboratory variables were imputed over time. We compared performance using area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC). XGBoost achieved an average error reduction of 33% in MAE and 32% in RMSE across ABG variables, and 19% and 21% across BMP variables, respectively. Bi-LSTM models using our ML-based hourly laboratory estimates (AUROC 0.951, 95% CI 0.942-0.960; AUPRC 0.419, 95% CI 0.375-0.465) outperformed models using previous-value laboratory imputation (AUROC 0.923, 95% CI 0.910-0.935; AUPRC 0.343, 95% CI 0.301-0.386). Our real-time imputation models led to significant error reduction of most ABG and BMP targets, improving deep learning model performance for the need of RRT.
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.