ICU Hour-24 Landmark Prediction of In-Hospital Mortality in Critically Ill Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Development in MIMIC-IV and External Validation in eICU
Pathak, S.; Sanjaya, J.; Si, Y.; Haghi, M.; Kudrot, N.; Placencia, G.; Alaei, K.; Pishgar, M.
Show abstract
Background: Retrospective intensive care unit prediction models are vulnerable to temporal leakage when predictors include information recorded after the intended prediction time. We developed and externally validated an ICU hour-24 landmark prediction pipeline for in-hospital mortality among critically ill patients with coronary artery disease using timestamp-restricted features from MIMIC-IV and eICU. Methods: Adults with coronary artery disease or coronary heart disease who were alive and remained under ICU observation at hour 24 were included. MIMIC-IV was used for model development, and eICU was reserved for external validation. Dynamic events were restricted to ICU admission through hour 24 in MIMIC-IV and offsets of 0-1440 minutes in eICU before aggregation. We evaluated an XGBoost model using baseline and respiratory-support predictors and a 102-predictor random forest using baseline, respiratory-support, and treatment predictors. Robustness was assessed across 30 repeated patient-grouped MIMIC-IV validation splits, and external uncertainty was estimated using 1,000 subject-clustered bootstrap resamples. Results: The MIMIC-IV cohort included 4,341 ICU stays with 993 deaths, and the eICU cohort included 19,464 stays with 2,237 deaths. In eICU, XGBoost achieved a ROC-AUC of 0.7973 (95% CI, 0.7878-0.8068), a PR-AUC (calculated as average precision) of 0.3627 (95% CI, 0.3423-0.3843), and a Brier score of 0.1189 (95% CI, 0.1164-0.1213). The random forest achieved a ROC-AUC of 0.8060 (95% CI, 0.7960-0.8154), a PR-AUC of 0.3687 (95% CI, 0.3471-0.3915), and a Brier score of 0.1032 (95% CI, 0.1012-0.1054). The random forest had a modestly higher ROC-AUC and lower Brier score than XGBoost. Mean validation ROC-AUCs across repeated MIMIC-IV splits were 0.7970 and 0.7954, respectively. Exploratory analyses suggested that narrower, consistently harmonized feature sets transported more reliably than broader expansions. Conclusions: Timestamp-restricted first-day models achieved external ROC-AUCs of approximately 0.80. However, external calibration remained imperfect, and local recalibration and prospective evaluation would be required before clinical use.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A comparison of machine learning models versus clinical evaluation for mortality prediction in patients with sepsis 95%
- An Online Risk Calculator for Rapid Prediction of In-hospital Mortality from COVID-19 Infection 93%
- Derivation and validation of a triage tool for acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19: The PRIEST observational cohort study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Real-Time Electronic Health Record Mortality Prediction During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective Cohort Study 95%
- Validation of a Derived International Patient Severity Algorithm to Support COVID-19 Analytics from Electronic Health Record Data 95%
- Personalizing renal replacement therapy initiation in the intensive care unit: a reinforcement learning-based strategy with external validation on the AKIKI randomized controlled trials 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- OASIS+: leveraging machine learning to improve the prognostic accuracy of OASIS severity score for predicting in-hospital mortality 96%
- Implicit bias in Critical Care Data: Factors affecting sampling frequencies and missingness patterns of clinical and biological variables in ICU Patients 94%
- Development and Validation of ‘Patient Optimizer’ (POP) Algorithms for Predicting Surgical Risk with Machine Learning 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Predicting bloodstream infection outcome using machine learning 95%
- Evaluation of Domain Generalization and Adaptation on Improving Model Robustness to Temporal Dataset Shift in Clinical Medicine 95%
- Developing And Validating COVID-19 Adverse Outcome Risk Prediction Models From A Bi-National European Cohort Of 5594 Patients 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- A comprehensive ML-based Respiratory Monitoring System for Physiological Monitoring & Resource Planning in the ICU 95%
- Machine Learning Generalizability Across Healthcare Settings: Insights from multi-site COVID-19 screening 94%
- CT-based Rapid Triage of COVID-19 Patients: Risk Prediction and Progression Estimation of ICU Admission, Mechanical Ventilation, and Death of Hospitalized Patients 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.