Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40707901›Full record

Observational studyBMC medical informatics and decision making2025

Beyond labels: determining the true type of blood gas samples in ICU patients through supervised machine learning.

Johan Helleberg, Anna Sundelin, Johan Mårtensson, Olav Rooyackers, Ragnar Thobaben

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Johan HellebergPerioperative Medicine and Intensive Care, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. johan.helleberg@ki.se.
Anna SundelinPerioperative Medicine and Intensive Care, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Johan MårtenssonPerioperative Medicine and Intensive Care, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Olav RooyackersPerioperative Medicine and Intensive Care, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ragnar ThobabenDivision of Information Science and Engineering, Digital Futures Faculty, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), data stored in patient data management systems (PDMS) is commonly used in clinical practice and research. Parameters from point-of-care arterial blood gas (BG) analysis are used in the diagnosis and definition of syndromes such as sepsis and ARDS, but manual entry of the blood source (arterial or venous) into the PDMS introduces the risk of mislabeling venous samples as arterial. Our study aimed to employ supervised machine learning to accurately identify blood gas samples as arterial or venous using PDMS data.

methodsA retrospective, single-center observational cohort study including all blood gases during 2018 from a Swedish, pediatric and adult general ICU. Chemical parameters from BG analysis and clinical parameters such as mean arterial pressure (MAP) and saturation (SpO2) were utilized as features. A specialist physician in Intensive Care manually determined the true class of each sample through comprehensive retrospective chart review. The samples were split into training, testing and holdout sets. Training was performed using cross-validation in the training set, with forward stepwise feature selection and Bayesian hyperparameter optimization, and accuracy was assessed using area under the precision recall curve (AUCPR) in the test set. The best model was compared to a multivariate logistic regression model (LR) in the holdout set.

resultsAmong 33,800 samples (30,753 arterial, 3,047 non-arterial) from 691 ICU admissions, 150 (0.44%) were erroneously marked. The best performing algorithm was extreme gradient boosting (XGboost) using 9 features, with an AUCPR of 0.9974 (95% CI 0.9961-0.9984), significantly better than the LR model (AUCPR = 0.9791, 95% CI 0.9651-0.9904).

conclusionSupervised machine learning demonstrates efficacy in determining blood gas sample type from ICU patients. This approach shows promise for improving the accuracy of research and clinical applications relying on blood gas data.

Indexed as

Blood Gas AnalysisIntensive Care UnitsSupervised Machine LearningAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesAdultBiochemistryBlood gasICUIntensive carePediatricSupervised machine learning

Identifiers

PMID40707901
PMCPMC12288198

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.