ArticleFrontiers in immunology2026
Explainable machine learning for predicting venous thromboembolism in septic shock patients.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 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: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) frequently complicates septic shock, yet precise, individualized risk stratification tools remain scarce. This study aimed to develop and externally validate an explainable machine learning (ML) framework to predict VTE in this critically ill population. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted including adult septic shock patients admitted between January 2020 and December 2025. The study population was partitioned into an internal development cohort (n=733) and an independent external validation cohort from a separate tertiary hospital (n=257, Xi'an No. 3 Hospital). We utilized the Boruta algorithm alongside recursive feature elimination to isolate optimal predictors. Six ML algorithms were trained and evaluated using metrics including the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and F1 score. Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) were integrated to establish model transparency. Results: The VTE incidence within the development cohort was 17.74% (130/733). The feature selection pipeline distilled six robust predictors: fibrin degradation products (FDP), prothrombin time (PT), white blood cells (WBC), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), D-dimer, and C-reactive protein (CRP). Among the evaluated models, the Random Forest (RF) algorithm exhibited superior discriminative capacity and promising performance in an independent external validation cohort, achieving an AUC of 0.9718 and an F1 score of 0.7917 in the independent external validation cohort, with a sensitivity of 0.7037. SHAP analysis revealed that heightened thrombo-inflammatory markers combined with abbreviated coagulation intervals fundamentally drove VTE risk, offering personalized predictive insights via individual force plots. Conclusions: We successfully established a highly accurate and interpretable RF-based predictive model for VTE in septic shock patients. By leveraging six routine clinical biomarkers and SHAP-derived transparency, this tool bridges complex algorithmic forecasting with clinical intuition, providing a transparent risk assessment framework that may assist in risk stratification for thromboprophylaxis after prospective validation. Future implementation studies are needed to assess its real-world clinical utility and impact on 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.