MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407111595 · doi:10.2196/65190

Machine Learning–Based Prediction of Delirium and Risk Factor Identification in Intensive Care Unit Patients With Burns: Retrospective Observational Study

2025· article· en· W4407111595 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ryo Esumi, Hiroki Funao, Eiji Kawamoto, Ryota Sakamoto, Asami Ito-Masui, Fumito Okuno, Toru Shinkai, Atsuya Hane, Kaoru Ikejiri, Yuichi Akama, Arong Gaowa, Eun Jeong Park, Ryo Momosaki, Ryuji Kaku, Motomu Shimaoka

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyPreprintDeliriumMedicineRetrospective cohort studyIdentification (biology)Intensive care medicineRisk factorEmergency medicineMedical emergencyComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The incidence of delirium in patients with burns receiving treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) is high, reaching up to 77%, and has been associated with increased mortality rates. Therefore, early identification of patients at high risk of delirium onset is essential for improving treatment strategies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to create a machine learning model for predicting delirium in patients with burns during their ICU stay using patient data from the first day of ICU admission and identify predictive factors for ICU delirium in patients with burns. METHODS: This study focused on 82 patients with burns aged ≥18 years who were admitted to the ICU at Mie University Hospital for ≥24 hours between January 2015 and June 2023. In total, 70 variables were measured in patients upon ICU admission and used as explanatory variables in the ICU delirium prediction model. Delirium was assessed using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist every 8 hours after ICU admission. A total of 10 different machine learning methods were used to predict ICU delirium. Multiple receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted for various machine learning models, and the area under the curve (AUC) for each was compared. In addition, the top 15 risk factors contributing to delirium onset were identified using Shapley additive explanations analysis. RESULTS: Among the 10 machine learning models tested, logistic regression (mean AUC 0.906, SD 0.073), support vector machine (mean AUC 0.897, SD 0.056), k-nearest neighbor (mean AUC 0.894, SD 0.060), neural network (mean AUC 0.857, SD 0.058), random forest (mean AUC 0.850, SD 0.074), adaptive boosting (mean AUC 0.832, SD 0.094), gradient boosting machine (mean AUC 0.821, SD 0.074), and naïve Bayes (mean AUC 0.827, SD 0.095) demonstrated the highest accuracy in predicting ICU delirium. Specifically, 24-hour urine output (from ICU admission to 24 hours), oxygen saturation, burn area, total bilirubin level, and intubation upon ICU admission were identified as the major risk factors for delirium onset. In addition, variables, such as the proportion of white blood cell fractions, including monocytes; methemoglobin concentration; and respiratory rate, were identified as important risk factors for ICU delirium. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the ability of machine learning models trained using vital signs and blood data upon ICU admission to predict delirium in patients with burns during their ICU stay.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207