Back

State-Dependent Parameter Relevance in Intensive Care: Syndrome-Specific Centroids Improve Orbit-Based Mortality Prediction from AUC 0.59 to 0.83 in 59,362 Predictions

Basilakis, A.; Duenser, M. W.

2026-04-08 intensive care and critical care medicine
10.64898/2026.04.05.26350216 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: The Therapeutic Distance framework (Paper 1) achieved AUC 0.61 for orbit-based mortality prediction in 11,627 sepsis patients. We hypothesised that incorporating state-dependent parameter relevance would substantially improve prediction. Methods: We extended the framework to 84,176 ICU patients from MIMIC-IV v3.1 across 16 clinical syndromes. Validation included full-population leave-one-out (n=59,362), head-to-head comparison against SAPS-II and logistic regression on 34,467 matched patients with bootstrap confidence intervals, temporal validation, outcome permutation, sensitivity analysis, and calibration assessment. Results: Full-population leave-one-out achieved AUC 0.832 (n=59,362). On 34,467 matched patients, Therapeutic Distance (AUC 0.841) significantly outperformed both SAPS-II (0.786; delta=+0.055, 95% CI +0.048 to +0.061, p<0.001) and logistic regression (0.788). Temporal validation showed stable performance (delta=-0.006). Outcome permutation confirmed genuine signal (AUC 0.859 to 0.498 with shuffled mortality). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated near-zero variation (delta 0.0006-0.003). The framework performed well for 8 of 16 syndromes (AUC >0.70) and failed for DKA and post-cardiac surgery (AUC <0.40). Conclusions: Therapeutic Distance provides therapy-specific risk stratification that exceeds both established severity scores and standard machine learning while remaining robust to hyperparameter choices, temporal drift, and outcome permutation.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Critical Care Explorations
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
37.6%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 8%
9.1%
3
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 35%
4.2%
5
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
6
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 12%
2.6%
7
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
8
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
9
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.9%
10
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.9%
11
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
12
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
13
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
14
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
15
Critical Care
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
16
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
17
Science Translational Medicine
111 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
18
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
19
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
20
Physiological Measurement
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
21
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
23
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
24
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
25
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
26
Pediatric Research
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%