Back

Developing and externally validating machine learning models to forecast short-term risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia

Peltekian, A. K.; Liao, W.-T.; Guggilla, V.; Markov, N. S.; Senkow, K.; Liao, Z.; Kang, M.; Rasmussen, L. V.; Tavernier, E.; Ehrmann, S.; Clepp, R. K.; Stoeger, T.; Walunas, T.; Choudhary, A. N.; Misharin, A. V.; Singer, B. D.; Budinger, G. S.; Wunderink, R. G.; Gao, C. A.; Agrawal, A.

2026-01-30 intensive care and critical care medicine
10.64898/2026.01.28.26344858
Show abstract

PurposeVentilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) remains one of the most serious hospital-acquired infections in the intensive care unit (ICU), with high morbidity and mortality. Early identification of patients at risk for developing VAP could enable timely diagnostics and intervention. However, current clinical tools are limited in their ability to detect early physiologic signals preceding VAP onset. We aimed to build supervised machine learning models to predict short term onset of VAP. MethodsWe analyzed electronic health record data from a prospective observational cohort of ICU patients, where VAP was adjudicated using a standardized published protocol by a panel of critical care physicians. Clinical features (including vital signs, ventilator settings, laboratory values, and support devices) were extracted for each patient-ICU-day. We explored unsupervised clustering to characterize feature dynamics associated with VAP onset. We built multiple machine learning models across different prediction windows (3, 5, 7 days before VAP). We examined model performance in two external cohorts, MIMIC-IV and secondary analysis of the AMIKINHAL trial. Results were evaluated with discrimination metrics such as AUROC. ResultsThe internal cohort included 507 patients with BAL-confirmed diagnoses: 261 developed VAP and 246 did not have VAP. Visualization using clustering identified distinct physiologic states enriched for VAP-labeled days. The best-performing model achieved an AUROC of 0.866 in predicting VAP up to seven days before clinical diagnosis. Temporal model probability trajectories showed rising model confidence in the days leading up to VAP. On external validation in MIMIC-IV, the best model achieved an AUROC of 0.817 for forecasting VAP within five days. There was low feature overlap with the AMIKINHAL trial data, leading to poor model performance. Feature analysis revealed that platelet count, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), ventilator duration, and inflammatory markers were key drivers of model predictions. ConclusionsMachine learning models trained on routinely collected ICU data with careful labeling can anticipate VAP onset up to a week in advance with strong predictive performance. Model performance generalized to data from an entirely different hospital system despite differences in practice and labeling patterns, but did not perform well when there was poor feature overlap. Future work should focus on real-time prospective evaluation.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 7%
13.3%
2
npj Digital Medicine
based on 85 papers
Top 1%
13.3%
3
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 44%
11.4%
4
PLOS Computational Biology
based on 141 papers
Top 2%
7.7%
5
Critical Care Explorations
based on 15 papers
Top 0.3%
7.7%
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
based on 37 papers
Top 2%
3.0%
7
European Respiratory Journal
based on 44 papers
Top 2%
3.0%
8
The Lancet Digital Health
based on 25 papers
Top 1%
2.4%
9
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
based on 53 papers
Top 4%
2.4%
10
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
based on 36 papers
Top 4%
2.4%
11
Frontiers in Medicine
based on 99 papers
Top 8%
2.4%
12
JAMIA Open
based on 35 papers
Top 4%
1.9%
13
JAMA Network Open
based on 125 papers
Top 9%
1.9%
14
Wellcome Open Research
based on 34 papers
Top 1%
1.6%
15
Clinical Chemistry
based on 14 papers
Top 0.9%
1.3%
16
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
based on 45 papers
Top 7%
1.3%
17
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 34%
1.3%
18
PLOS Digital Health
based on 88 papers
Top 9%
1.3%
19
eLife
based on 262 papers
Top 21%
1.3%
20
Journal of Medical Internet Research
based on 81 papers
Top 11%
1.3%
21
Critical Care
based on 14 papers
Top 1%
1.2%
22
Frontiers in Physiology
based on 18 papers
Top 2%
1.2%
23
iScience
based on 74 papers
Top 7%
0.8%
24
BMC Medicine
based on 155 papers
Top 25%
0.7%
25
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 53%
0.7%
26
International Journal of Medical Informatics
based on 25 papers
Top 6%
0.7%