MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124945631 · doi:10.2196/23888

Noninvasive Real-Time Mortality Prediction in Intensive Care Units Based on Gradient Boosting Method: Model Development and Validation Study

2021· article· en· W3124945631 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Huizhen Jiang, Longxiang Su, Hao Wang, Dongkai Li, Congpu Zhao, Na Hong, Yun Long, Weiguo Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntensive careGradient boostingFeature engineeringMedicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceReceiver operating characteristicCritically illFeature (linguistics)Machine learningData miningIntensive care medicineDeep learningRandom forest

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Monitoring critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) in real time is vitally important. Although scoring systems are most often used in risk prediction of mortality, they are usually not highly precise, and the clinical data are often simply weighted. This method is inefficient and time-consuming in the clinical setting. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to integrate all medical data and noninvasively predict the real-time mortality of ICU patients using a gradient boosting method. Specifically, our goal was to predict mortality using a noninvasive method to minimize the discomfort to patients. METHODS: In this study, we established five models to predict mortality in real time based on different features. According to the monitoring, laboratory, and scoring data, we constructed the feature engineering. The five real-time mortality prediction models were RMM (based on monitoring features), RMA (based on monitoring features and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE]), RMS (based on monitoring features and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA]), RMML (based on monitoring and laboratory features), and RM (based on all monitoring, laboratory, and scoring features). All models were built using LightGBM and tested with XGBoost. We then compared the performance of all models, with particular focus on the noninvasive method, the RMM model. RESULTS: After extensive experiments, the area under the curve of the RMM model was 0.8264, which was superior to that of the RMA and RMS models. Therefore, predicting mortality using the noninvasive method was both efficient and practical, as it eliminated the need for extra physical interventions on patients, such as the drawing of blood. In addition, we explored the top nine features relevant to real-time mortality prediction: invasive mean blood pressure, heart rate, invasive systolic blood pressure, oxygen concentration, oxygen saturation, balance of input and output, total input, invasive diastolic blood pressure, and noninvasive mean blood pressure. These nine features should be given more focus in routine clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study may be helpful in real-time mortality prediction in patients in the ICU, especially the noninvasive method. It is efficient and favorable to patients, which offers a strong practical significance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207