Predicting Tracheostomy Need on Admission to the Intensive Care Unit—A Multicenter Machine Learning Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It is difficult to predict which mechanically ventilated patients will ultimately require a tracheostomy which further predisposes them to unnecessary spontaneous breathing trials, additional time on the ventilator, increased costs, and further ventilation-related complications such as subglottic stenosis. In this study, we aimed to develop a machine learning tool to predict which patients need a tracheostomy at the onset of admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. SETTING: Multicenter Study of 335 Intensive Care Units between 2014 and 2015. METHODS: The eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) was utilized to obtain the patient cohort. Inclusion criteria included: (1) Age >18 years and (2) ICU admission requiring mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome of interest included tracheostomy assessed via a binary classification model. Models included logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost). RESULTS: Of 38,508 invasively mechanically ventilated patients, 1605 patients underwent a tracheostomy. The XGBoost, RF, and LR models had fair performances at an AUROC 0.794, 0.780, and 0.775 respectively. Limiting the XGBoost model to 20 features out of 331, a minimal reduction in performance was observed with an AUROC of 0.778. Using Shapley Additive Explanations, the top features were an admission diagnosis of pneumonia or sepsis and comorbidity of chronic respiratory failure. CONCLUSIONS: Our machine learning model accurately predicts the probability that a patient will eventually require a tracheostomy upon ICU admission, and upon prospective validation, we have the potential to institute earlier interventions and reduce the complications of prolonged ventilation.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".