ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2026
Development and validation of machine learning models for 30-day mortality prediction in septic shock.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Septic shock carries a high risk of death, yet traditional prognostic tools have limitations. This study aimed to develop and validate machine learning (ML) models for predicting 30-day mortality in septic shock patients using comprehensive admission variables. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 695 patients with septic shock. Demographic characteristics, vital signs, and 33 laboratory parameters were included as candidate predictors. LASSO regression was used for feature selection from age, gender and 33 laboratory parameters. Eleven ML algorithms were developed using a two-way split with internal cross-validation (60% training with 5-fold CV for hyperparameter tuning, 40% held-out validation cohort for final evaluation) and their performances were evaluated using AUC with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), sensitivity, specificity, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis. SHAP method was applied for model interpretation. Results: LASSO selected six predictors: lactate, platelet count, neutrophil percentage, monocyte percentage, albumin, and C-reactive protein. Following rigorous hyperparameter tuning, the Random Forest (RF) model demonstrated the best and most stable performance in the validation cohort (AUC = 0.820, 95% CI: 0.765-0.875). The RF model demonstrated good calibration and net clinical benefit. A web-based risk calculator was subsequently developed. Conclusion: The RF model based on six readily available laboratory parameters accurately predicts 30-day mortality in septic shock patients. However, the findings are limited by the single-center retrospective design and lack of external validation, warranting further multi-center studies to confirm generalizability.
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.