MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Predicting Extubation Failure in Critically Ill Adults Receiving Invasive Mechanical Ventilation: A Secondary Analysis of the Wean Safe Cohort

2025· article· en· W4410276231 on OpenAlexaff
Fernando Binder, Federico Angriman, Bruno L. Ferreyro, Ricard Mellado Artigas, Laurent Brochard, Frank van Haren, Toshikazu Abe, Kiyoyasu Kurahashi, Ewan C. Goligher, Tài Pham, WEAN SAFE Investigators

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCritically illMechanical ventilationIntensive care medicineCohortCohort studyCritical illnessAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract RATIONALE Critically ill patients who fail an extubation attempt face a higher risk of poor in-hospital outcomes, including prolonged ICU stay and increased mortality. However, it remains unclear how best to estimate the risk of extubation failure in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. We conducted a secondary analysis of the WEAN SAFE cohort (a multinational study that described weaning practices) to derive and internally validate different machine learning algorithms to predict extubation failure. METHODS WEAN SAFE enrolled eligible participants in 481 ICUs in 50 countries, who had received mechanical ventilation for 2 calendar days or longer. Our secondary analysis included adult patients who were deliberately extubated, excluding those with orders to withhold re-intubation. The main outcome of interest was the composite of re-intubation or death within 7 days of extubation. The cohort was randomly split in train and test samples (using a 2:1 ratio). We fitted classification algorithms using patients’ baseline demographics, comorbidities, reason and severity of ICU admission, physiologic and ventilation parameters closest to extubation time, and center-level features. We report discrimination performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; AUROC), feature importance (a relative measure of each predictor's role), and calibration measures (e.g., Brier score) in the test sample for each model. RESULTS Of 5869 patients in the original WEAN SAFE cohort, 3584 met inclusion criteria. We excluded 286 patients with a pre-existing order (made before or on the day of extubation) to withhold reintubation. Of 3298 patients, 2199 and 1099 were randomly split in the train and test samples respectively. Overall, women comprised 38% of the train sample; 65% of patients presented at least one baseline comorbidity before ICU admission. ICU admissions were mostly medical (66%), followed by urgent or planned surgery (15% and 9% respectively). The composite outcome of re-intubation or death within 7 days of extubation occurred in 19% of patients. Tested models showed similar performance, with AUROC estimates between 0.63 and 0.65; Brier score estimates were between 0.15 and 0.16 (see Table). The variables with the highest predictive importance were 1) frailty, 2) age, 3) respiratory rate (RR) and pre-extubation PaO2:FiO2 ratio, 4) cardiac arrest, and 4) lower-income country. CONCLUSION Different supervised learning algorithms have adequate performance to predict extubation failure among critically ill adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation who undergo a planned extubation attempt. The use of these models in clinical practice and the enrichment of future studies should be further explored.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→