Cited by 208Machine Learning in HealthcareSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Early hospital mortality prediction of intensive care unit patients using an ensemble learning approach

Awad, Aya, Bader-El-Den, Mohamed, McNicholas, James, Briggs, Jim·2017·International Journal of Medical Informatics

Abstract

Background Mortality prediction of hospitalized patients is an important problem. Over the past few decades, several severity scoring systems and machine learning mortality prediction models have been developed for predicting hospital mortality. By contrast, early mortality prediction for intensive care unit patients remains an open challenge. Most research has focused on severity of illness scoring systems or data mining (DM) models designed for risk estimation at least 24 or 48h after ICU admission. Objectives This study highlights the main data challenges in early mortality prediction in ICU patients and introduces a new machine learning based framework for Early Mortality Prediction for Intensive Care Unit patients (EMPICU). Materials and methods The proposed method is evaluated on the Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care II (MIMIC-II) database. Mortality prediction models are developed for patients at the age of 16 or above in Medical ICU (MICU), Surgical ICU (SICU) or Cardiac Surgery Recovery Unit (CSRU). We employ the ensemble learning Random Forest (RF), the predictive Decision Trees (DT), the probabilistic Naive Bayes (NB) and the rule-based Projective Adaptive Resonance Theory (PART) models. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The explanatory variables included demographic, physiological, vital signs and laboratory test variables. Performance measures were calculated using cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) to minimize bias. 11,722 patients with single ICU stays are considered. Only patients at the age of 16 years old and above in Medical ICU (MICU), Surgical ICU (SICU) or Cardiac Surgery Recovery Unit (CSRU) are considered in this study. Results The proposed EMPICU framework outperformed standard scoring systems (SOFA, SAPS-I, APACHE-II, NEWS and qSOFA) in terms of AUROC and time (i.e. at 6h compared to 48h or more after admission). Discussion and conclusion The results show that although there are many values missing in the first few hour of ICU admission, there is enough signal to effectively predict mortality during the first 6h of admission. The proposed framework, in particular the one that uses the ensemble learning approach - EMPICU Random Forest (EMPICU-RF) offers a base to construct an effective and novel mortality prediction model in the early hours of an ICU patient admission, with an improved performance profile.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.10.002

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Accurate mortality prediction can give clinicians advanced warnings of possible deteriorations and share the burdens of making information-heavy decisions.

    “Accurate mortality prediction can give clinicians advanced warnings of possible deteriorations and share the burdens of making information-heavy decisions44.”
  • Clinicians in ICU units often need to make rapid evaluations of patient conditions to inform treatment plans.

    “Due to its time and outcome-critical environments, clinicians in ICU units often need to make rapid evaluations of patient conditions to inform treatment plans44.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Awad, A., Bader-El-Den, M., McNicholas, J., & Briggs, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Portsmouth (GB)
  • Queen Alexandra Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Bader-El-Den, Mohamed
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-12
Volume
108
Pages
185-195
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2764165920
Cited by
208
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 7
FWCI
8.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
early mortality prediction, intensive care unit patients, in-hospital mortality, ensemble learning, random forest, MIMIC-II, disease severity assessment, naive Bayes
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Bayes Theorem, Female, Heart Diseases, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Male, Middle Aged, ROC Curve, Severity of Illness Index, Databases, Factual, Hospital Mortality, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review