ArticleDigital health
Interpretable machine learning models for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with chronic critical illness and heart failure: A multicenter study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associations of Red Blood Cell Distribution Width-Derived Indicators and Their Longitudinal Dynamic Trajectories With Mortality Risk in Critically Ill Patients With Pulmonary Hypertension.Pulmonary circulation · 2026Article
- A proteomic atlas phenotyping Fabry disease identifies a precise cardiovascular risk signature that integrates mitochondrial and lysosomal pathways.Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Review
- Smart emergency care: a narrative review of predictive machine learning models.Annals of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Enhanced machine learning and hybrid ensemble approaches for Coronary Heart Disease prediction.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Heart failure (HF) is a primary contributor to morbidity and mortality among patients in intensive care units (ICUs), particularly those experiencing chronic critical illness (CCI). This study aims to develop and validate a machine learning (ML) model for predicting in-hospital mortality in CCI patients with HF. Methods: Retrospective data from over 200 hospitals were sourced from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC-III), MIMIC-IV, and the eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD). Only patients diagnosed with both CCI and HF were included. The MIMIC datasets served as the derivation cohort, while the eICU-CRD dataset was used for external validation. Key predictive variables were identified through recursive feature elimination. A range of ML algorithms, including random forest, K-nearest neighbors, and support vector machine (SVM), were evaluated alongside four other models. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Model interpretability was enhanced through SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) and local interpretable model-agnostic explanations. Results: A total of 780 and 610 patients with CCI and HF were assigned to the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. Eleven features were selected for model development. The SVM model demonstrated substantial predictive accuracy, with AUROC values of 0.781 and 0.675 in the derivation and validation cohorts. Feature importance analysis using SHAP identified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, oxyhemoglobin saturation, and blood pressure as key predictors. Conclusion: The SVM model developed reliably predicts in-hospital mortality in patients with CCI and HF, offering a valuable tool for early intervention and enhanced patient management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.