ArticleScientific reports2025
Development and validation of a machine learning model for predicting mortality risk in veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Integrating bibliometric analysis and external validation of the SAVE score in VA-ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock: insights from global trends and the MIMIC-IV database.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-guided tools in adult ECMO: Current advancements, emerging Trends and future directions.Perfusion · 2026Review
- Alternate and Emerging Anticoagulation Strategies for Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
This study aims to develop and validate a machine learning-based mortality risk prediction model for V-A ECMO patients to improve the precision of clinical decision-making. This multicenter retrospective cohort study included 280 patients receiving V-A ECMO from the Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Yulin First People's Hospital, and the MIMIC-IV database. The data from the Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University and the MIMIC-IV database were merged and randomly divided in a 7:3 ratio into a training set and an internal validation set, respectively. The dataset from Yulin First People's Hospital was reserved as an external validation cohort. The primary study outcome was defined as in-hospital mortality.Feature selection was conducted using Lasso regression, followed by the development of six machine learning models: Logistic Regression, Random Forest (RF), Deep Neural Network (DNN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), LightGBM, and CatBoost. Model performance was assessed using the Area Under the Curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and F1 score. Model validation was performed through calibration and decision curve analysis. Feature importance was evaluated using SHAP, and subgroup analysis was conducted to assess the model's applicability across different clinical scenarios. In internal validation, the Logistic Regression model performed the best, with an AUC of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.77-0.93), accuracy of 0.76, sensitivity of 0.73, specificity of 0.79, and an F1 score of 0.73. It outperformed other models (RF: AUC = 0.79, DNN: AUC = 0.78, SVM: AUC = 0.76, LightGBM: AUC = 0.71, CatBoost: AUC = 0.77). External validation yielded consistent results, with the Logistic Regression model's AUC at 0.75 (95% CI: 0.56-0.92), accuracy of 0.69, sensitivity of 0.64, specificity of 0.73, and an F1 score of 0.66. Calibration curve analysis revealed that the Logistic Regression model had the lowest Brier score (0.1496), indicating the most reliable predicted probabilities. Decision curve analysis demonstrated that the model provided the highest net benefit across most decision thresholds. SHAP analysis identified lactate, age, and albumin as key predictors of mortality, with lactate and age positively correlated, and albumin negatively correlated. Subgroup analysis revealed better performance in the cardiac arrest group (AUC = 0.81), non-sepsis group (AUC = 0.75), and non-diabetes group (AUC = 0.78). The Logistic Regression-based mortality risk prediction model for V-A ECMO patients demonstrated comparable or even favorable performance to more complex machine learning models, with the advantage of higher interpretability.By explicitly incorporating lactate, age, and albumin as the principal predictors, this model facilitates precise risk stratification and provides practical support for clinical decision-making in ECMO 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.