ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Machine learning-based mortality prediction models for emergency department patients: a comparative analysis.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate mortality prediction in emergency departments (ED) is crucial for timely intervention and resource allocation. This study developed and compared multiple machine learning models to predict in-hospital mortality among ED patients. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 1,389 ED patients admitted to Affiliated Kunshan Hospital of Jiangsu University between January and December 2021. After excluding patients under 16 years and those transferred or discharged against medical advice, we collected demographic data, vital signs, and laboratory results within 30 min of ED arrival. Nine machine learning models including Logistic Regression, Random Forest, XGBoost, LightGBM, Gradient Boosting, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Neural Network, AdaBoost, and an ensemble voting classifier were developed and compared using metrics including area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, and calibration. Results: Among 1,389 patients (mean age 67.72 ± 19.28 years, 63.1% male), the mortality rate was 11.59%. LightGBM demonstrated the best performance with an AUROC of 0.9605 (95% CI: 0.94-0.98), sensitivity of 78.12%, and specificity of 93.90%. The ensemble voting classifier achieved comparable performance (AUROC: 0.9599). SHAP analysis identified serum lactate (importance: 0.252), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) (0.085), albumin (0.075), base excess (BE) (0.061), and systolic blood pressure (SBP) (0.049) as the top five predictive features. Calibration curves demonstrated excellent agreement between predicted and observed mortality rates, and decision curve analysis confirmed clinical utility across various threshold probabilities. Risk stratification based on predicted mortality probabilities effectively separated patients into prognostically distinct groups. Conclusion: Machine learning models, particularly LightGBM, provide highly accurate mortality prediction for ED patients. The integration of readily available clinical and laboratory parameters enables early risk stratification and may facilitate targeted interventions to improve patient outcomes.
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.