Light Tree-Based Models for Mortality Prediction of ICU Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous predictive models have been developed to assess in-hospital mortality risk of patients receiving intensive care, particularly those on mechanical ventilation. However, light tree-based models can accelerate clinical outcome predictions and enable timely interventions by physicians. An automated feature selection framework is proposed in this study, including Autofeat library, ReliefF and Fast CorrelationBased Filter (FCBF). The proposed framework was employed to eliminate most of the features before the prediction task. Treebased models - Bagging (BGG) and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) - demonstrated comparable predictive accuracy using only 7 and 4 features for the imbalanced sample (S1.1) and balanced sample (S2.2), respectively, out of 67 original features. The BGG model, utilizing 7 features, achieved high predictive accuracy with an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.89 (95 % confidence interval <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$[\text{CI}]: 0.87-0.90)$</tex>. In contrast, when applied to the S2.2 sample with only 4 features, both the XGB and BGG model yielded inferior results, as reflected by an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.79-0.83).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".