ArticleFrontiers in neurology2026
Development and external validation of an interpretable machine learning model for early prediction of in-hospital mortality in neurocritical care.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 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
Background: Early risk assessment is a routine part of neurocritical care, yet mortality prediction remains difficult because neurological injury often coexists with respiratory, circulatory, renal, and inflammatory dysfunction. This study aimed to develop and externally validate an interpretable machine learning (ML) model for predicting in-hospital mortality in neurocritical-care patients using variables available within the first 24 h after intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using two public critical-care databases. The Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) database was used for model development and internal testing, and the eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) was used for independent external validation. The report follows the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement. Adult ICU patients with neurocritical-care diagnoses were identified by predefined International Classification of Diseases codes. Candidate predictors were restricted to information recorded during the first 24 h after ICU admission and included demographics, comorbidities, vital signs, laboratory results, neurological status, organ-support therapies, and severity scores. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was used for feature selection. Logistic regression, random forest, XGBoost, LightGBM, CatBoost, and multilayer perceptron models were trained. Discrimination was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC). Calibration, decision curve analysis (DCA), and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were used to evaluate probability reliability, potential clinical utility, and interpretability. The operating threshold used for classification metrics was fixed in the MIMIC-IV development data before internal and external evaluation. Results: The MIMIC-IV cohort included Conclusions: A model based on routinely collected first-day ICU data provided externally validated and interpretable risk stratification for in-hospital mortality in neurocritical care. Its low positive predictive value at the reported operating point precludes use as a stand-alone basis for prognostic pessimism, treatment limitation, or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Prospective validation in diverse countries and health systems is required before clinical implementation.
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.