A comprehensive review of ICU readmission prediction models: From statistical methods to deep learning approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prediction of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) readmission has become a crucial area of research due to the increasing demand for ICU resources and the need to provide timely interventions to critically ill patients. In recent years, several studies have explored the use of statistical, machine learning (ML), and deep learning (DL) models to predict ICU readmission. This review paper presents an extensive overview of these studies and discusses the challenges associated with ICU readmission prediction. We categorize the studies based on the type of model used and evaluate their strengths and limitations. We also discuss the performance metrics used to evaluate the models and their potential clinical applications. In addition, this review explores current methodologies, data usage, and recent advances in interpretability and explainable AI for medical applications, offering insights to guide future research and development in this field. Finally, we identify gaps in the current literature and provide recommendations for future research. Recent advances like ML and DL have moderately improved the prediction of the risk of ICU readmission. However, more progress is needed to reach the precision required to build computerized decision support tools.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".