Back

Early-Horizon Multimodal ICU Mortality Prediction Without Retraining

Bakumenko, A.; Smith, D. H.; Hoelscher, J.

2026-05-21 health informatics
10.64898/2026.05.18.26353392 medRxiv
Show abstract

Earlier ICU mortality prediction is more clinically useful because it can identify high-risk patients while treatment decisions can still change. Yet most models are trained on data from a fixed time window, so it is unclear whether a model trained on the first 48 hours of ICU data remains reliable when used earlier in the ICU stay. We evaluated a multimodal ICU mortality model trained once at 48 hours and then applied unchanged at 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours on MIMIC-III. The model combines an LSTM for physiological time-series data, a finetuned ClinicalModernBERT model for clinical notes, and a logistic regression fusion layer. Performance remained strong at earlier time points, suggesting that useful mortality prediction is possible earlier in the ICU stay even without retraining. At 6 hours, the model achieved AUROC 0.777 and remained well-calibrated (ECE 0.038) without any recalibration, and it outperformed both single-modality models at every horizon. The multimodal benefit was most evident at earlier horizons, when physiological data were sparse: agreement between the two specialists dropped by more than half from 48 to 6 hours, while the median contribution from clinical notes increased from 37% to 49%. A Bayesian version of the fusion layer showed that uncertainty decreased for survivors as more data accumulated but remained high for non-survivors; the most uncertain cases were up to 4.9 times more likely to be non-surviving patients. Continuous hourly analyses further showed that clinical notes provide stable context between documentation events. Simply carrying forward the most recent note matched or outperformed note-decay and documentation-gap alternatives. These results suggest that a multimodal ICU mortality model trained on 48 hours of data can provide trustworthy earlier predictions without retraining, while also identifying the cases that remain hardest to interpret.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
22.1%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 3%
14.1%
3
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
10.3%
4
Nature Machine Intelligence
61 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
5
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.5%
6
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.0%
7
Physiological Measurement
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
8
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.9%
9
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
10
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
11
Patterns
70 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.7%
12
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
13
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
14
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.6%
15
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.5%
16
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
17
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 20%
1.2%
18
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
19
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
20
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
21
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
34 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
22
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
23
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
24
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
25
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 30%
0.8%
27
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
28
Critical Care
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
29
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
30
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%