Predicting Duration of Mechanical Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Using Supervised Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an intense inflammatory process of the lungs. Most ARDS patients require mechanical ventilation (MV). Few studies have investigated the prediction of MV duration over time. We aimed at characterizing the best early scenario during the first two days in the intensive care unit (ICU) to predict MV duration after ARDS onset using supervised machine learning (ML) approaches. Methods: For model description, we extracted data from the first 3 ICU days after ARDS diagnosis from patients included in the publicly available MIMIC-III database. Disease progression was tracked along those 3 ICU days to assess lung severity according to Berlin criteria. Three robust supervised ML techniques were implemented using Python 3.7 (Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM); Random Forest (RF); and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost)) for predicting MV duration. For external validation, we used the publicly available multicenter database eICU. Results: A total of 2466 and 5153 patients in MIMIC-III and eICU databases, respectively, received MV for >48 h. Median MV duration of extracted patients was 6.5 days (IQR 4.4–9.8 days) in MIMIC-III and 5.0 days (IQR 3.0–9.0 days) in eICU. LightGBM was the best model in predicting MV duration after ARDS onset in MIMIC-III with a root mean square error (RMSE) of 6.10–6.41 days, and it was externally validated in eICU with RMSE of 5.87–6.08 days. The best early prediction model was obtained with data captured in the 2nd day. Conclusions: Supervised ML can make early and accurate predictions of MV duration in ARDS after onset over time across ICUs. Supervised ML models might have important implications for optimizing ICU resource utilization and high acute cost reduction of MV.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".