Machine learning-based prognostic model for in-hospital mortality of aortic dissection: Insights from an intensive care medicine perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Aortic dissection (AD) is a severe emergency with high morbidity and mortality, necessitating strict monitoring and management. This retrospective study aimed to identify prognostic factors and establish predictive models for in-hospital mortality among AD patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: We retrieved ICU admission records of AD patients from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-IV critical care data set and the eICU Collaborative Research Database. Functional data analysis was further applied to estimate continuous vital sign processes, and variables associated with in-hospital mortality were identified through univariate analyses. Subsequently, we employed multivariable logistic regression and machine learning techniques, including simple decision tree, random forest (RF), and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) to develop prognostic models for in-hospital mortality. Results: Given 643 ICU admissions from MIMIC-IV and 501 admissions from eICU, 29 and 28 prognostic factors were identified from each database through univariate analyses, respectively. For prognostic model construction, 507 MIMIC-IV admissions were divided into 406 (80%) for training and 101 (20%) for internal validation, and 87 eICU admissions were included as an external validation group. Of the four models tested, the RF consistently exhibited the best performance among different variable subsets, boasting area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.870 and 0.850. The models highlighted the mean 24-h fluid intake as the most potent prognostic factor. Conclusions: The current prognostic models effectively forecasted in-hospital mortality among AD patients, and they pinpointed noteworthy prognostic factors, including initial blood pressure upon ICU admission and mean 24-h fluid intake.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".