ArticlePLOS digital health2026
A machine learning model for in-hospital mortality prediction in patients with sepsis-related myocardial injury.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis-related myocardial injury (SRMI) is associated with high mortality, but the transportability of prediction models across heterogeneous cohorts remains uncertain. We developed and externally validated a machine learning model for in-hospital mortality prediction in SRMI and evaluated its discrimination, calibration, interpretability, and distributional shift across cohorts. Using MIMIC-IV for development and MIMIC-III and a local cohort for external validation (n = 1,226, 962, and 280, respectively), we compared eight classification algorithms. A two-stage feature-selection strategy, recursive feature accumulation and sequential elimination with incremental feature evaluation, ranked 31 candidate variables to derive a parsimonious predictor set. The selected model was evaluated for discrimination, precision-recall performance, calibration, clinical utility, and risk stratification. Logistic recalibration, population stability index (PSI) analysis, and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were used to assess probability alignment, cross-cohort distributional shift, and model interpretability. Feature selection reduced 31 candidate variables to 8 predictors with little loss of cross-validated performance (AUC, 0.819 with 31 variables versus 0.810 with 8 variables). The selected random forest model achieved an AUC of 0.819 (bootstrap 95% CI, 0.787-0.848) and a PR-AUC of 0.702 (0.657-0.751) in MIMIC-III, and an AUC of 0.758 (0.693-0.816) and a PR-AUC of 0.525 (0.435-0.630) in the local cohort. Recalibration reduced the Brier score from 0.162 to 0.147 in MIMIC-III and from 0.233 to 0.196 in the local cohort. PSI indicated minimal distributional shift between MIMIC-IV and MIMIC-III but substantial shift in the local cohort, particularly for SOFA score, respiratory rate, and prothrombin time. SHAP identified prothrombin time, invasive ventilation, lactate, temperature, and urine output as major contributors to model predictions. In two external cohorts, an 8-variable random forest model showed moderate discrimination for mortality prediction in SRMI. The evaluation of external performance, calibration, distributional shift, and SHAP-based explanations provides an assessment of model transportability. Prospective validation is needed before clinical deployment.
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.