ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2025
Machine learning model to predict mortality in patients with skin and soft tissue infection in emergency department.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurately predicting mortality in patients with skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs) remains challenging. Machine learning models offer rapid processing, algorithmic impartiality, and strong predictive accuracy, which may improve early risk stratification in the emergency department (ED).
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 1,294 ED patients diagnosed with SSTIs between March 2015 and December 2020. Five machine learning algorithms-logistic regression (LR), k-nearest neighbours (KNN), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost)-were developed using 20 candidate variables, with model performance evaluated in independent runs. A simplified XGBoost model using only the six most influential predictors was also derived for bedside application.
resultsAmong the five models, XGBoost achieved the highest performance (AUC = 0.892, sensitivity = 86.9%, specificity = 93.4%). The streamlined six-variable XGBoost model further improved predictive metrics (AUC = 0.922, sensitivity = 88.5%, specificity = 95.4%), matching or slightly surpassing the full model while reducing data requirements.
conclusionsXGBoost outperformed LR, KNN, SVM, and RF in predicting SSTI mortality, offering both higher accuracy and operational efficiency. Its sequential tree-building, regularization, and robust handling of missing data enable superior discrimination in tabular clinical datasets. The simplified model, requiring only standard admission variables, provides a fast, cost-effective, and highly accurate tool for early identification of high-risk patients in the ED.
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.