MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Development and Nested Cross-Validation of Explainable Machine-Learning Models for Predicting the Risk of Propofol-Associated Hypertriglyceridemia in Critically-Ill, Mechanically-Ventilated Patients

2025· article· en· W4410274298 on OpenAlexaff
Jiawen Deng, Kiyan Heybati, Guohao Xie, Krishna Poudel

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCritically illHypertriglyceridemiaPropofolIntensive care medicineIntensive careAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract RATIONALE Propofol is the first-line sedative for critically-ill, mechanically-ventilated patients, but it can increase serum triglyceride levels. Machine-learning (ML) offers a promising approach for individualized risk stratification of propofol-associated hypertriglyceridemia, enabling proactive triglyceride monitoring and sedation optimization. This study aims to develop and validate ML models to predict hypertriglyceridemia risks in critically-ill patients receiving propofol. METHODS We analyzed retrospective data from adult ICU patients on mechanical ventilation receiving continuous propofol infusion for ≥24 hours across four Mayo Clinic sites from May 2018 to June 2023. The primary outcome was hypertriglyceridemia, defined as serum triglycerides >400 mg/dL within 10 days of starting propofol. Ten-fold cross-validation and leave-one-site-out nested cross-validation (LOSO-CV) were used for model tuning and external validation of our modeling process, respectively. Feature selection was conducted through a union of Boruta and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). While COVID status was a strong predictor of hypertriglyceridemia, we concurrently developed non-COVID models to ensure future relevance in non-pandemic settings. Six ML algorithms (logistic regression, support vector machines, random forests, LightGBM, XGBoost, and multilayer perceptrons) were tuned using Bayesian optimization to minimize cross-entropy loss. Classification thresholds were set to target sensitivity ≥80%. Model performance was evaluated using AUC-ROC, Brier score, sensitivity, and specificity. Models with the highest Youden's Index were designated the best-performing model. Model explainability was assessed using permutation importance and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). RESULTS We included 3922 eligible patients with triglyceride measurements. Of these, 3042 patients were COVID-negative and used for non-COVID modeling. The best-performing non-COVID models achieved an average AUC-ROC of 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.70), Brier score of 0.12 (95% CI 0.09-0.14), sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI 0.75-0.83), and specificity of 0.48 (95% CI 0.44-0.52) during LOSO-CV. The best-performing models that included COVID status achieved an average AUC-ROC of 0.71 (95% CI 0.70-0.72), Brier score of 0.13 (95% CI 0.10-0.16), sensitivity of 0.78 (95% CI 0.71-0.84), and specificity of 0.51 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.56) during LOSO-CV. The permutation importance results of the final non-COVID model are shown in the figure. CONCLUSION We have developed sensitive ML models for predicting hypertriglyceridemia risks in critically-ill patients receiving propofol. Although developed during the COVID-19 pandemic, the non-COVID models are more likely to have future relevance, and they have similar performance as models including COVID status. These models will be integrated into a web-based clinical calculator and undergo further validation in prospective studies.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→