Predicting Outcome and Duration of Mechanical Ventilation in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: The PREMIER Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The ability of clinicians to predict prolonged mechanical ventilation (MV) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is inaccurate, mainly because of the competitive risk of mortality. We aimed to assess the performance of machine learning (ML) models for the early prediction of prolonged MV in a large cohort of patients with AHRF. Methods: We analyzed 996 ventilated AHRF patients with complete data at 48 h after diagnosis of AHRF from 1241 patients enrolled in a prospective, national epidemiological study, after excluding 245 patients ventilated for <2 days. To account for competing mortality, we used multinomial regression analysis (MNR) to model prolonged MV in three categories: (i) ICU survivors (regardless of MV duration), (ii) non-survivors ventilated for 2–7 days, (iii) non-survivors ventilated for >7 days. We performed 4 × 10-fold cross-validation to validate the performance of potent ML techniques [Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF)] for predicting patient assignment. Results: All-cause ICU mortality was 32.8% (327/996). We identified 12 key predictors at 48 h of AHRF diagnosis: age, specific comorbidities, sequential organ failure assessment score, tidal volume, PEEP, plateau pressure, PaO2, pH, and number of organ failures. MLP showed the best predictive performance [AUC 0.86 (95%CI: 0.80–0.92) and 0.87 (0.80–0.93)], followed by MNR [AUC 0.83 (0.76–0.90) and 0.84 (0.77–0.91)], in distinguishing ICU survivors, with non-survivors ventilated 2–7 days and >7 days, respectively. Conclusions: Accounting for ICU mortality, MLP and MNR offered accurate patient-level predictions. Further work should integrate clinical and organizational factors to improve timely management and optimize outcomes. This study was initially registered on 3 February 2025 at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06815523).
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".