Observational studyBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Beyond labels: determining the true type of blood gas samples in ICU patients through supervised machine learning.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive validity of daily sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA)-2 score for 30-day mortality.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Observational
- Automated Calculation of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score in the Intensive Care Unit: Algorithm Development, Validation, and Association With 30-Day Mortality.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Unveiling the Gaps: Machine Learning Models for Unmeasured Ions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.