Cited by 374Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentMachine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Mortality prediction in intensive care units with the Super ICU Learner Algorithm (SICULA): a population-based study.

Open access
Pirracchio, Romain, Petersen, Maya L, Carone, Marco, Rigon, Matthieu Resche, Chevret, Sylvie, van der Laan, Mark J·2015·The Lancet Respiratory Medicine

Abstract

Background Improved mortality prediction for patients in intensive care units is a big challenge. Many severity scores have been proposed, but findings of validation studies have shown that they are not adequately calibrated. The Super ICU Learner Algorithm (SICULA), an ensemble machine learning technique that uses multiple learning algorithms to obtain better prediction performance, does at least as well as the best member of its library. We aimed to assess whether the Super Learner could provide a new mortality prediction algorithm for patients in intensive care units, and to assess its performance compared with other scoring systems.Methods From January, 2001, to December, 2008, we used the Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care II (MIMIC-II) database (version 26) including all patients admitted to an intensive care unit at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre, Boston, MA, USA. We assessed the calibration, discrimination, and risk classification of predicted hospital mortality based on Super Learner compared with SAPS-II, APACHE-II, and SOFA. We calculated performance measures with cross-validation to avoid making biased assessments. Our proposed score was then externally validated on a dataset of 200 randomly selected patients admitted at the intensive care unit of Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, Paris, France, between Sept 1, 2013, and June, 30, 2014. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The explanatory variables were the same as those included in the SAPS II score.Findings 24,508 patients were included, with median SAPS-II of 38 (IQR 27-51) and median SOFA of 5 (IQR 2-8). 3002 of 24,508 (12%) patients died in the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre. We produced two sets of predictions based on the Super Learner; the first based on the 17 variables as they appear in the SAPS-II score (SL1), and the second, on the original, untransformed variables (SL2). The two versions yielded average predicted probabilities of death of 0·12 (IQR 0·02-0·16) and 0·13 (0·01-0·19), whereas the corresponding value for SOFA was 0·12 (0·05-0·15) and for SAPS-II 0·30 (0·08-0·48). The cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for SAPS-II was 0·78 (95% CI 0·77-0·78) and 0·71 (0·70-0·72) for SOFA. Super Learner had an AUROC of 0·85 (0·84-0·85) when the explanatory variables were categorised as in SAPS-II, and of 0·88 (0·87-0·89) when the same explanatory variables were included without any transformation. Additionally, Super Learner showed better calibration properties than previous score systems. On the external validation dataset, the AUROC was 0·94 (0·90-0·98) and calibration properties were good.Interpretation Compared with conventional severity scores, Super Learner offers improved performance for predicting hospital mortality in patients in intensive care units. A user-friendly implementation is available online and should be useful for clinicians seeking to validate our score.Funding Fulbright Foundation, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Doris Duke Clinical Scientist Development Award, and the NIH.

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/s2213-2600(14)70239-5

Cites

54 of 54 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?

  • Super Learner ranks candidate algorithms by performance and applies an optimal weight to each, creating ensemble algorithms that can accurately predict transfusion requirements and mortality among trauma patients.

    “To capitalize on this phenomenon, Super Learner ranks a set of candidate algorithms20,28,38,39 by their performance and applies an optimal weight to each, creating ensemble algorithms that can accurately predict transfusion requirements and mortality among trauma patients.20,28,38,39”

    From Artificial Intelligence and Surgical Decision-making. (2020) · cites this paper as [38]

    The Introduction and Prediction Algorithms section describe ranking candidate algorithms by predictive performance and combining them with optimal weights. The Results report accurate ICU mortality prediction, but the study included a mixed ICU population rather than evaluating trauma patients separately, and it did not assess transfusion requirements (Results > Patients; Patients and Methods > Data Collection and Patients). (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [50]Van der Laan MJ Rose S Targeted Learning: Causal Inference for Observational and Experimental Data Springer 2011

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pirracchio, R., Petersen, M. L., Carone, M., Rigon, M. R., Chevret, S., & van der Laan, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Venue
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-01
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
42-52
ISSN
2213-2600 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2150765167
Cited by
374
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1
FWCI
8.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Respiratory Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
  • Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI074345)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
mortality prediction, intensive care unit, ensemble learning, super learner, in-hospital mortality, severity scoring, SAPS II, APACHE II score, SOFA score, MIMIC II database, external validation, risk classification, discrimination and calibration, risk stratification, intensive care unit admission criteria
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Algorithms, Boston, Female, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Male, Middle Aged, Risk, ROC Curve, Severity of Illness Index, Reproducibility of Results, Hospital Mortality

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