ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Predicting extubation failure in patients with cardiorespiratory decompensation: development and validation of an interpretable machine learning-based risk calculator.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to develop an interpretable machine learning model for predicting extubation failure in mechanically ventilated patients with combined respiratory failure and cardiac dysfunction. Methods: A retrospective cohort of 350 patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation between January 2022 and January 2024 was analyzed. After rigorous data preprocessing ≤5% missing values were imputed using mean, median, or mode based on distribution type. The dataset was partitioned into training ( Results: The ISGA-optimized AutoML framework (converging to LightGBM as the optimal algorithm) demonstrated superior performance on the independent test set, achieving a ROC-AUC of 0.9289 and a PR-AUC of 0.8892. Decision curve analysis confirmed clinical utility across threshold probabilities of 0.3-0.7, outperforming treat-all and treat-none strategies, and the calibration curve yielded a low Brier score of 0.114. Key predictors identified included brain Natriuretic Peptide (BNP), lactate, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), troponin, and central venous pressure (CVP). Conclusion: The interpretable prediction tool accurately stratifies extubation failure risk using clinically available parameters, offering a prototype tool for personalized ventilation management.
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.