ArticlePloS one2025
Predicting in-hospital mortality in ICU patients with lymphoma using machine learning models.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLymphoma is a severe condition with high mortality rates, often requiring ICU admission. Traditional risk stratification tools like SOFA and APACHE scores struggle to capture complex clinical interactions. Machine learning (ML) models offer a more accurate alternative for predicting outcomes by analyzing large datasets. However, their application in predicting in-hospital mortality for lymphoma patients remains limited.
objectiveThis study aims to develop and validate machine learning models to predict in-hospital mortality in ICU patients with lymphoma using data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) database, thereby enhancing risk stratification and clinical decision-making.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the MIMIC-IV database, which includes detailed clinical data from adult patients admitted to the ICU. Patients with a primary diagnosis of lymphoma were included. Baseline characteristics, laboratory parameters, and clinical outcomes were extracted. Lasso regression was employed to screen for significant risk factors associated with in-hospital mortality. Fifteen machine learning models, including logistic regression, random forest, gradient boosting, and neural networks, were developed and compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) analysis. Model performance was evaluated through cross-validation and SHapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) values to interpret variable importance.
resultsA total of 1591 patients were included, with 342 (21.5%) in-hospital deaths. Lasso regression identified significant predictors of mortality, including blood urea nitrogen (BUN), platelets, PT, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, APTT, spo2, and bicarbonate. The CatBoost Classifier demonstrated the highest predictive performance with an AUC of 0.7766. SHAP analysis highlighted the critical role of BUN as the most important factor in mortality prediction, followed by platelets and PT. The SHAP force plot provided individualized risk assessments for patients, demonstrating the model's ability to identify high-risk subgroups.
conclusionMachine learning models, particularly the CatBoost Classifier, effectively predict in-hospital mortality in ICU patients with lymphoma. These models outperform traditional statistical methods and provide valuable insights into risk stratification. Future work should focus on external validation and clinical implementation to improve patient outcomes in this high-risk population.
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.