Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Machine Learning-Based Prediction of ICU Readmissions in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Patients: Insights from the MIMIC Databases

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A 12-feature artificial neural network predicts ICU readmission in intracerebral hemorrhage patients with an AUROC of 0.899 (95% CI 0.860–0.911), outperforming random forest, XGBoost, and the prior LightGBM model.

desk verdict The AUROC 0.899 claim is undermined by internally inconsistent sensitivity/specificity numbers and a leftover discussion passage; fixable but not acceptable as-is. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01183 v1 pith:IPYDLWYE submitted 2025-01-02 cs.LG

Shuheng Chen , Junyi Fan , Armin Abdollahi , Negin Ashrafi , Kamiar Alaei , Greg Placencia , Maryam Pishgar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords ICUreadmissionintracerebralhemorrhageartificialneuralnetworkmachinelearningADASYNSHAPMIMIC-IIIMIMIC-IV
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Strokes from bleeding inside the brain (intracerebral hemorrhage, ICH) carry high death and complication rates, and returning to the ICU after a first stay is a serious, costly event. This paper tries to show that a compact artificial neural network can predict that return from 12 routinely available clinical values—age, hospital stay, SpO2, five electrolytes and blood counts, and three clotting measures—extracted from the MIMIC-III and MIMIC-IV critical-care databases. The authors report an area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.899 (95% CI 0.860–0.911), meaning the model ranks readmitted patients above non-readmitted ones almost 90% of the time, and they claim this beats random forest (0.818), XGBoost (0.870), and the best prior model on this task (LightGBM, 0.736). The practical point the paper argues for is sensitivity: the network identifies 89.3% of patients who will be readmitted, compared with 22.6% for the prior model, at a specificity of 79.6%. If the result holds, a discharge-time risk score built from this feature set could guide closer monitoring and smarter allocation of ICU beds.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pairing of a 12-feature clinical panel with a four-hidden-layer feedforward neural network trained under ADASYN oversampling. The feature panel was built by recursive feature elimination on 33 candidate variables, then augmented with age and SpO2 on expert advice; the network's hidden layers (128-64-32-16) with ReLU activations let it fit nonlinear interactions among these labs and vitals, while L2 regularization and grid search control overfitting. ADASYN supplies synthetic minority-class examples in regions where readmitted patients are underrepresented, which is what the authors credit for the high recall. SHAP values then provide the attribution story: the same 12-input network doubles as an interpretability device, ranking age, chloride, MCHC, and monocytes as the main drivers of readmission risk.

What would settle it

Re-run the published pipeline with ADASYN applied strictly after the train-test split, a fixed readmission window of 30 days, and the same 12 features; if the test AUROC no longer beats XGBoost's 0.870 or falls outside the reported 95% confidence interval of 0.860–0.911, the claimed superiority of the ANN is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that a small artificial neural network—four hidden layers of 128, 64, 32, and 16 units with ReLU activations, a sigmoid output, L2 regularization tuned by grid search, and ADASYN oversampling to balance the minority readmission class—predicts ICU readmission in ICH patients better than the baselines it was tested against. Trained on 80% and tested on 20% of a merged cohort of 2,316 patients (871 from MIMIC-III and 1,445 from MIMIC-IV), the model achieved accuracy 0.881, sensitivity 0.893, specificity 0.796, and AUROC 0.899 (95% CI 0.860–0.911). SHAP analysis on the test set identifies age, chloride, MCHC, and monocytes as the strongest predictors, with older age, abnormal chloride, and low SpO2 pushing risk upward. The authors conclude that the model offers a simpler, more sensitive alternative to the 44-variable LightGBM model from the prior literature.

Load-bearing premise

The headline AUROC depends on the assumption that every patient's 'ICU readmission' was labeled with the same, unspecified time window and that ADASYN oversampling was applied only to the training set; the paper does not state the readmission window or whether the sampling happened before or after the 80/20 split, so if test information leaked into training, the 0.899 figure is inflated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 12-variable panel could be turned into a discharge checklist that flags ICH patients at high readmission risk without waiting for imaging or clinical notes.
  • At 0.893 sensitivity, the model would catch roughly 9 of 10 true readmissions; the 0.796 specificity means about 1 in 5 flagged patients would not actually return, a trade-off many ICU triage settings could tolerate.
  • The reported AUROC gap over the prior LightGBM model (0.899 vs 0.736) implies that the combination of feature selection and ANN may be extracting predictive signal that the earlier 44-variable model missed.
  • If the model is deployed, its SHAP-identified drivers—age, chloride, MCHC, monocytes, SpO2, neutrophils, and sodium—could be monitored longitudinally, not just at admission.
  • The lightweight architecture and small feature set would make the model cheaper to embed in an electronic health record than models requiring dozens of variables.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper never defines the time window for 'ICU readmission,' so the outcome could mix returns within the same hospitalization, returns within 30 days, and returns at any later time; standardizing to a 30-day unplanned-readmission definition would make the result comparable to most readmission literature.
  • A sentence in the Discussion describes the model as predicting ICU mortality in mechanically ventilated patients, which does not match the readmission outcome analyzed in the Methods and Results; the target outcome should be confirmed before the reported comparison is interpreted.
  • Because the gain over XGBoost is modest (0.899 vs 0.870), a plausible alternative explanation is that ADASYN and the 12-feature selection—not depth of the ANN—carry most of the performance; re-running XGBoost with the same oversampling and features would settle that.
  • If ADASYN was applied before the 80/20 split, as the Methods may imply, synthetic examples could appear in the test set and inflate the AUROC; checking whether any test rows are synthetic is a quick way to test the headline number.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript develops machine-learning models to predict ICU readmission in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) using merged MIMIC-III and MIMIC-IV data. After literature review, recursive feature elimination, and expert input, 12 features are selected. An ANN with four hidden layers and ADASYN is proposed and compared with XGBoost and Random Forest, with claims of AUROC 0.899 (95% CI 0.860–0.911), accuracy 0.881, sensitivity 0.893, and specificity 0.796, outperforming the baseline models and a prior LightGBM study. The paper also reports VIF diagnostics, SHAP analysis, and a comparison with Miao et al. The central claim is that the ANN provides superior predictive performance for ICU readmission in ICH patients.

Significance. If the reported performance is reliable, the model could be a clinically useful, low-dimensional risk-stratification tool for ICH patients, and the comparison with prior work would represent a clear improvement in sensitivity. Strengths of the manuscript include the use of a public, well-known critical-care database, explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria, two baseline models, VIF-based multicollinearity assessment, and SHAP-based interpretability. However, the central claim is currently undermined by internal contradictions in the statistical reporting and unresolved questions about data leakage and outcome definition. The contributions are potentially valuable but require substantial revision before the performance claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Table 2] The text states that in the training-versus-test comparison, 'all 12 characteristics had p-values less than 0.05,' but Table 2 reports p-values ranging from 0.088 to 0.992, all above 0.05. These two statements are directly contradictory. The authors must correct either the narrative or the table and reconcile the conclusion about whether the training and test sets are representative.
  2. [Section 3.2, Table 4] The reported ANN metrics are numerically inconsistent under standard definitions. With accuracy = 0.881, sensitivity = 0.893, and specificity = 0.796, the identity accuracy = prevalence × sensitivity + (1 − prevalence) × specificity implies a test-set readmission prevalence of (0.881 − 0.796)/(0.893 − 0.796) = 0.876, i.e., 87.6% readmitted. This contradicts the paper's description of readmission as the minority class motivating ADASYN. If sensitivity and specificity are swapped, the implied prevalence becomes 12.4%, which is more plausible. The authors must report the confusion matrix, class counts, and an unambiguous definition of the positive class, and correct the sensitivity/specificity labels if they are reversed.
  3. [Section 2.6 and Section 2.4] The manuscript does not specify whether ADASYN, KNN imputation, and RFE-based feature selection were applied before or after the 80/20 train-test split. If ADASYN synthesizes samples from the full dataset, or if imputation or feature selection uses test-set information, the test AUROC can be optimistically biased. The authors must clarify that all preprocessing and feature selection steps are fitted on the training set only, or re-run the pipeline with a strict split-before-preprocessing protocol.
  4. [Section 2.2 and Section 3.2] The outcome 'ICU readmission' is never operationally defined. The paper does not state the readmission time window (e.g., 30-day, 90-day, or any subsequent ICU admission within the same hospitalization or after discharge), nor how the merged MIMIC-III and MIMIC-IV cohorts handle overlapping or repeated admissions. Without an explicit outcome definition, the label is ambiguous and the reported sensitivity and comparison with Miao et al. cannot be interpreted. The authors should define the outcome precisely and report the resulting event rate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1] The first sentence states that the study predicted 'ICU mortality in patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation,' which appears to be a copy-paste error from another manuscript; this manuscript is about ICU readmission in ICH patients.
  2. [Section 4.2] The limitation section mentions both 'Random Oversampling and ADASYN,' but Section 2.6 describes only ADASYN. The authors should clarify which sampling methods were actually used.
  3. [Section 3.2, Table 5] In Table 5, the values '0.8930.796' appear without a separator for the ANN sensitivity and specificity; this should be corrected to '0.893, 0.796'.
  4. [Section 1] The text describes XGBoost as having 'interoperability'; the intended word is likely 'interpretability'.
  5. [General] The paper should report the class distribution and prevalence of the outcome in both the training and test sets, as well as 95% confidence intervals for accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, not only for AUROC.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No material circularity: the ANN's AUROC is measured on a held-out 20% test set and benchmarked against an external LightGBM study, so the central performance claim does not reduce to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical performance comparison on a held-out test set. The ANN, XGBoost, and Random Forest models are trained on an 80% split and evaluated on the remaining 20%, and the primary external benchmark is Miao et al. [22], an independent published study. This is a self-contained, externally anchored evaluation rather than a derivation that reduces to fitted parameters or to prior work by the same authors. The self-citations present (refs. 13 and 39) support general background statements about machine learning in medical data and the use of SHAP explanation tools; they are not load-bearing for the predictive result. The feature selection procedure (RFE plus expert opinion) and grid-search hyperparameter tuning are standard data-driven preprocessing and model-selection steps, not examples of defining the target outcome in terms of the model's own output. The paper does not invoke any uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The apparent inconsistency among the reported accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in Table 4, and the ambiguity about whether ADASYN was applied before or after the train-test split, are potential validity and reproducibility concerns, but they are not circularity within the claimed derivation chain. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, with a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on a standard ML pipeline with several free hyperparameters tuned via grid search on the training data, plus imputation and sampling choices. No new physical or clinical entities are introduced. The main domain assumptions are that MIMIC correctly records ICU stays and that ICD codes identify ICH patients.

free parameters (5)
  • ANN hidden layer sizes = [128, 64, 32, 16]
    Selected via grid search on the training set; directly shape the model capacity and reported AUROC.
  • L2 regularization lambdas = [0.03, 0.04, 0.03, 0.03]
    Tuned by grid search to prevent overfitting; influence generalization.
  • Selected feature set size = 12 features
    Chosen through RFE and expert opinion using the MIMIC cohort itself; the feature subset drives the predictive performance.
  • ADASYN sampling strategy = not specified
    Oversampling parameters affect class balance and therefore the reported sensitivity/specificity trade-off.
  • Imputation choices = KNN (0-20% missing), Iterative (20-50% missing)
    Missing data handling is a modeling choice that affects all downstream predictions.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption MIMIC-III and MIMIC-IV accurately capture ICU admissions and readmissions
    The entire cohort and labels come from these databases; errors in admission records would change the outcome labels.
  • domain assumption ICD-9 431 and ICD-10 I610-I616, I618-I619 correctly identify ICH diagnoses
    Cohort definition relies entirely on administrative billing codes, which can misclassify hemorrhage subtypes.
  • ad hoc to paper ADASYN synthetic samples are representative of the true minority-class distribution
    The paper uses ADASYN to balance classes, but no evidence is given that synthetic samples preserve real clinical relationships.
  • standard math Two-sided t-tests are valid for comparing the selected continuous features
    Assumes approximate normality and independence; stated for the statistical comparisons in Section 2.5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Machine Learning-Based Prediction of ICU Readmissions in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Patients: Insights from the MIMIC Databases." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IPYDLWYE

@misc{pith2026250101183,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Machine Learning-Based Prediction of ICU Readmissions in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Patients: Insights from the MIMIC Databases},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IPYDLWYE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01183}
}
read the original abstract

Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a life-risking condition characterized by bleeding within the brain parenchyma. ICU readmission in ICH patients is a critical outcome, reflecting both clinical severity and resource utilization. Accurate prediction of ICU readmission risk is crucial for guiding clinical decision-making and optimizing healthcare resources. This study utilized the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-III and MIMIC-IV) databases, which contain comprehensive clinical and demographic data on ICU patients. Patients with ICH were identified from both databases. Various clinical, laboratory, and demographic features were extracted for analysis based on both overview literature and experts' opinions. Preprocessing methods like imputing and sampling were applied to improve the performance of our models. Machine learning techniques, such as Artificial Neural Network (ANN), XGBoost, and Random Forest, were employed to develop predictive models for ICU readmission risk. Model performance was evaluated using metrics such as AUROC, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. The developed models demonstrated robust predictive accuracy for ICU readmission in ICH patients, with key predictors including demographic information, clinical parameters, and laboratory measurements. Our study provides a predictive framework for ICU readmission risk in ICH patients, which can aid in clinical decision-making and improve resource allocation in intensive care settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01183 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Criterion of study population extraction 2.3 Feature Selection In our study, the feature selection process unfolded in multiple phases, including a comprehensive literature review, Recursive Feature Elimination(RFE) feature selection method, and experts’ opinions. To start, we conducted an extensive review of the literature and considered input from experts to validate candidate features [22,23,24,25]. After this pr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Variance Inflation Factor of selected features. 2.4 Data Cleaning and Handling Missing Values The first step in preprocessing involved addressing missing values, handled based on feature type (categorical or numeric) and the proportion of missing data. For categorical features with 0-20% missing values, we used SimpleImputer with the most frequent strategy, replacing missing values with the most com￾mon category. Ca… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: AUROC-curves for test set of our three Machine Learning Models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Feature importance ranking based on mean absolute SHAP values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SHAP summary plot showing the distribution of SHAP values for each feature. Each dot represents an individual prediction, colored by the feature value (blue: low, red: high) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Leveraging MIMIC Datasets for Better Digital Health: A Review on Open Problems, Progress Highlights, and Future Promises

    cs.CV 2025-06 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A narrative survey of MIMIC dataset challenges that is undermined by incorrect citations and unsourced performance tables.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Circulation research 130(8), 1204–1229 (2022)

    Magid-Bernstein, J., Girard, R., Polster, S., Srinath, A., Romanos, S., Awad, I.A., Sansing, L.H.: Cerebral hemorrhage: pathophysiology, treatment, and future direc- tions. Circulation research 130(8), 1204–1229 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Heart disease and stroke statistics-2019 update: a report from the American Heart Association

    Benjamin, E.J., Muntner, P., Alonso, A., Bittencourt, M.S., Callaway, C.W., Car- son, A.P., Chamberlain, A.M., Chang, A.R., Cheng, S., Das, S.R., et al.: American heart association council on epidemiology and prevention statistics committee and stroke statistics subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2019 update: a report from the American Hear...

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Circulation research 120(3), 439–448 (2017)

    Feigin, V.L., Norrving, B., Mensah, G.A.: Global burden of stroke. Circulation research 120(3), 439–448 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    The Lancet Neurology 9(2), 167–176 (2010)

    Van Asch, C.J., Luitse, M.J., Rinkel, G.J., van der Tweel, I., Algra, A., Klijn, C.J.: Incidence, case fatality, and functional outcome of intracerebral haemorrhage over time, according to age, sex, and ethnic origin: a systematic review and meta- analysis. The Lancet Neurology 9(2), 167–176 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Journal of the neurological sciences 398, 54–66 (2019)

    Pinho, J., Costa, A.S., Ara´ ujo, J.M., Amorim, J.M., Ferreira, C.: Intracerebral hemorrhage outcome: a comprehensive update. Journal of the neurological sciences 398, 54–66 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Neuroepidemiol- ogy 54(2), 171–179 (02 2020), https://doi.org/10.1159/000506396

    Krishnamurthi, R., Ikeda, T., Feigin, V.: Global, regional and country-specific bur- den of ischaemic stroke, intracerebral haemorrhage and subarachnoid haemorrhage: A systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study 2017. Neuroepidemiol- ogy 54(2), 171–179 (02 2020), https://doi.org/10.1159/000506396

    work page doi:10.1159/000506396 2017

  7. [7]

    Neuroepi- demiology 54(2), 171–179 (2020)

    Krishnamurthi, R.V., Ikeda, T., Feigin, V.L.: Global, regional and country-specific burden of ischaemic stroke, intracerebral haemorrhage and subarachnoid haemor- rhage: a systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study 2017. Neuroepi- demiology 54(2), 171–179 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Practical Neurology 21(2), 128–136 (2021) ML-based Prediction of ICU Readmissions in ICH Patients 15

    McGurgan, I.J., Ziai, W.C., Werring, D.J., Salman, R.A.S., Parry-Jones, A.R.: Acute intracerebral haemorrhage: diagnosis and management. Practical Neurology 21(2), 128–136 (2021) ML-based Prediction of ICU Readmissions in ICH Patients 15

    work page 2021

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports 21, 1–5 (2021)

    Kirshner, H., Schrag, M.: Management of intracerebral hemorrhage: update and future therapies. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports 21, 1–5 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Journal of Neurology 271(9), 6393–6395 (2024)

    Elias, M., Robertson, N., Hughes, T.: New approaches in the management of in- tracranial haemorrhage. Journal of Neurology 271(9), 6393–6395 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Critical Care 18, 1–12 (2014)

    Hosein, F.S., Roberts, D.J., Turin, T.C., Zygun, D., Ghali, W.A., Stelfox, H.T.: A meta-analysis to derive literature-based benchmarks for readmission and hospital mortality after patient discharge from intensive care. Critical Care 18, 1–12 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Critical Care Medicine 46(5), 749–756 (2018)

    Maharaj, R., Terblanche, M., Vlachos, S.: The utility of icu readmission as a quality indicator and the effect of selection. Critical Care Medicine 46(5), 749–756 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Plos one 19(9), e0309383 (2024)

    Li, H., Ashrafi, N., Kang, C., Zhao, G., Chen, Y., Pishgar, M.: A machine learning- based prediction of hospital mortality in mechanically ventilated icu patients. Plos one 19(9), e0309383 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Nature medicine 25(1), 24–29 (2019)

    Esteva, A., Robicquet, A., Ramsundar, B., Kuleshov, V., DePristo, M., Chou, K., Cui, C., Corrado, G., Thrun, S., Dean, J.: A guide to deep learning in healthcare. Nature medicine 25(1), 24–29 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Com- puters in biology and medicine 135, 104599 (2021)

    Tsiknakis, N., Theodoropoulos, D., Manikis, G., Ktistakis, E., Boutsora, O., Berto, A., Scarpa, F., Scarpa, A., Fotiadis, D.I., Marias, K.: Deep learning for diabetic retinopathy detection and classification based on fundus images: A review. Com- puters in biology and medicine...

    2021

  8. [16]

    NPJ digital medicine 1(1), 1–10 (2018)

    Rajkomar, A., Oren, E., Chen, K., Dai, A.M., Hajaj, N., Hardt, M., Liu, P.J., Liu, X., Marcus, J., Sun, M., et al.: Scalable and accurate deep learning with electronic health records. NPJ digital medicine 1(1), 1–10 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    In: Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining

    Chen, T., Guestrin, C.: Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. pp. 785–794 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 26(8), 4258–4269 (2022)

    Liu, S., Fu, B., Wang, W., Liu, M., Sun, X.: Dynamic sepsis prediction for intensive care unit patients using xgboost-based model with novel time-dependent features. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 26(8), 4258–4269 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Biochemical and biophysical research communications 603, 21–28 (2022)

    Zhou, Y., Yu, Z., Liu, L., Wei, L., Zhao, L., Huang, L., Wang, L., Sun, S.: Construc- tion and evaluation of an integrated predictive model for chronic kidney disease based on the random forest and artificial neural network approaches. Biochemical and biophysical research comm...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Scientific data 3(1), 1–9 (2016)

    Johnson, A.E., Pollard, T.J., Shen, L., Lehman, L.w.H., Feng, M., Ghassemi, M., Moody, B., Szolovits, P., Anthony Celi, L., Mark, R.G.: Mimic-iii, a freely accessible critical care database. Scientific data 3(1), 1–9 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Scientific data 10(1), 1 (2023)

    Johnson, A.E., Bulgarelli, L., Shen, L., Gayles, A., Shammout, A., Horng, S., Pollard, T.J., Hao, S., Moody, B., Gow, B., et al.: Mimic-iv, a freely accessible electronic health record dataset. Scientific data 10(1), 1 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Journal of the Neurological Sciences 456, 122849 (2024)

    Miao, J., Zuo, C., Cao, H., Gu, Z., Huang, Y., Song, Y., Wang, F.: Predicting icu readmission risks in intracerebral hemorrhage patients: Insights from machine learning models using mimic databases. Journal of the Neurological Sciences 456, 122849 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Critical care medicine 41(12), 2762–2769 (2013)

    Liotta, E.M., Singh, M., Kosteva, A.R., Beaumont, J.L., Guth, J.C., Bauer, R.M., Prabhakaran, S., Rosenberg, N.F., Maas, M.B., Naidech, A.M.: Predictors of 30- day readmission after intracerebral hemorrhage: a single-center approach for iden- tifying potentially modifiable ass...

    2013

  16. [24]

    Journal of Reliable Intelligent Environments 8(1), 49–66 (2022) 16 Chen et al

    Chen, T., Madanian, S., Airehrour, D., Cherrington, M.: Machine learning methods for hospital readmission prediction: systematic analysis of literature. Journal of Reliable Intelligent Environments 8(1), 49–66 (2022) 16 Chen et al

    2022

  17. [25]

    European Journal of Neurology 31(3), e16153 (2024)

    Mercurio, G., Gottardelli, B., Lenkowicz, J., Patarnello, S., Bellavia, S., Scala, I., Rizzo, P., de Belvis, A.G., Del Signore, A.B., Maviglia, R., et al.: A novel risk score predicting 30-day hospital re-admission of patients with acute stroke by machine learning model. Europ...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Scientific Reports 13(1), 18671 (2023)

    Sabouri, M., Rajabi, A.B., Hajianfar, G., Gharibi, O., Mohebi, M., Avval, A.H., Naderi, N., Shiri, I.: Machine learning based readmission and mortality prediction in heart failure patients. Scientific Reports 13(1), 18671 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Expert Systems 38(3), e12658 (2021)

    Qiu, Y., Ding, S., Yao, N., Gu, D., Li, X.: Hfs-lightgbm: A machine learning model based on hybrid feature selection for classifying icu patient readmissions. Expert Systems 38(3), e12658 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Expert Systems with Applications 202, 117314 (2022)

    Ahmed, A., Ashour, O., Ali, H., Firouz, M.: An integrated optimization and ma- chine learning approach to predict the admission status of emergency patients. Expert Systems with Applications 202, 117314 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Quality & quantity 41, 673–690 (2007)

    O’brien, R.M.: A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & quantity 41, 673–690 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    The Jour- nal of Machine learning research 7, 1–30 (2006)

    Demˇ sar, J.: Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. The Jour- nal of Machine learning research 7, 1–30 (2006)

    2006

  23. [31]

    Smart Health 28, 100374 (2023)

    Majhi, B., Kashyap, A.: Wavelet based ensemble models for early mortality pre- diction using imbalance icu big data. Smart Health 28, 100374 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Scientific reports 13(1), 15031 (2023)

    Son, B., Myung, J., Shin, Y., Kim, S., Kim, S.H., Chung, J.M., Noh, J., Cho, J., Chung, H.S.: Improved patient mortality predictions in emergency departments with deep learning data-synthesis and ensemble models. Scientific reports 13(1), 15031 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    In: 2008 IEEE international joint conference on neural networks (IEEE world congress on computational intelligence)

    He, H., Bai, Y., Garcia, E.A., Li, S.: Adasyn: Adaptive synthetic sampling approach for imbalanced learning. In: 2008 IEEE international joint conference on neural networks (IEEE world congress on computational intelligence). pp. 1322–1328. Ieee (2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    Digital Health 10, 20552076241277030 (2024)

    Yau, F.F.F., Chiu, I.M., Wu, K.H., Cheng, C.Y., Lee, W.C., Chen, H.C., Cheng, C.I., Chen, T.Y.: Machine learning-based prediction of coronary care unit read- mission: A multihospital validation study. Digital Health 10, 20552076241277030 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics 25(3), 827–837 (2020)

    Abad, Z.S.H., Maslove, D.M., Lee, J.: Predicting discharge destination of criti- cally ill patients using machine learning. IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics 25(3), 827–837 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    IEEE Access (2024)

    Alsinglawi, B.S., Alnajjar, F., Alorjani, M.S., Alshari, O., Novoa, M., Mubin, O.: Predicting hospital stay length using explainable machine learning. IEEE Access (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Infectious Diseases and Therapy 11(4), 1695–1713 (2022)

    Hu, C., Li, L., Li, Y., Wang, F., Hu, B., Peng, Z.: Explainable machine-learning model for prediction of in-hospital mortality in septic patients requiring intensive care unit readmission. Infectious Diseases and Therapy 11(4), 1695–1713 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 204, 106040 (2021)

    Jiang, Z., Bo, L., Xu, Z., Song, Y., Wang, J., Wen, P., Wan, X., Yang, T., Deng, X., Bian, J.: An explainable machine learning algorithm for risk factor analysis of in-hospital mortality in sepsis survivors with icu readmission. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 204...

    2021

  31. [39]

    BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 24(1), 228 (2024)

    Gao, J., Lu, Y., Ashrafi, N., Domingo, I., Alaei, K., Pishgar, M.: Prediction of sepsis mortality in icu patients using machine learning methods. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 24(1), 228 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.