Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Item Type
      Item Type
      Clear All
      Item Type
  • Subject
      Subject
      Clear All
      Subject
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
2 result(s) for "easl-clif criteria"
Sort by:
Predictive machine learning model in intensive care unit patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure and two or more organ failures
Background/Aims: Prediction of short-term mortality in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) may enhance effective management. Methods: To develop, explain, and validate a predictive machine learning (ML) model for short-term mortality in patients with ACLF with two or more organ failures (OFs). Utilizing a large ICU cohort with detailed clinical information, we identified ACLF patients with two or more OFs according to the EASL-CLIF and NACSELD definitions. ML model was developed for each definition to predict 30-day mortality. The Shapley value was estimated to explain the models. Validation and calibration of these models were performed. Results: Of 5,994 patients with cirrhosis admitted to ICU, 1,511 met NACSELD criteria, and 1,692 met EASL-CLIF grade II or higher criteria. The CatBoost ACLF (CBA) model had the greatest accuracy in the NACSELD cohort (area under curve [AUC] of 0.87), while the Random Forest ACLF (RFA) model performed best in the EASL-CLIF cohort (AUC of 0.83). Both models showed robust calibration. The models were explained by SHAP score analysis, yielding a rank list, and the top twelve predictors were selected. Both simplified models demonstrated similar performance (CBA model: AUC 0.89, RFA model: AUC 0.81) and significantly outperformed contemporary scoring systems, including CLIF-C ACLF and MELD 3.0. The models were validated in both internal and external cohorts. A simple-to-use online tool was created to predict mortality rates. Conclusions: We presented explainable, well-validated, and calibrated predictive models for ACLF patients with two or more OFs, which outperformed existing predictive scores. (Clin Mol Hepatol 2025;31:1355-1371)
Predictive machine learning model in intensive care unit patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure and two or more organ failures
Background/Aims: Prediction of short-term mortality in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) may enhance effective management.Methods: To develop, explain, and validate a predictive machine learning (ML) model for short-term mortality in patients with ACLF with two or more organ failures (OFs). Utilizing a large ICU cohort with detailed clinical information, we identified ACLF patients with two or more OFs according to the EASL-CLIF and NACSELD definitions. ML model was developed for each definition to predict 30-day mortality. The Shapley value was estimated to explain the models. Validation and calibration of these models were performed.Results: Of 5,994 patients with cirrhosis admitted to ICU, 1,511 met NACSELD criteria, and 1,692 met EASL-CLIF grade II or higher criteria. The CatBoost ACLF (CBA) model had the greatest accuracy in the NACSELD cohort (area under curve [AUC] of 0.87), while the Random Forest ACLF (RFA) model performed best in the EASL-CLIF cohort (AUC of 0.83). Both models showed robust calibration. The models were explained by SHAP score analysis, yielding a rank list, and the top twelve predictors were selected. Both simplified models demonstrated similar performance (CBA model: AUC 0.89, RFA model: AUC 0.81) and significantly outperformed contemporary scoring systems, including CLIF-C ACLF and MELD 3.0. The models were validated in both internal and external cohorts. A simple-to-use online tool was created to predict mortality rates.Conclusions: We presented explainable, well-validated, and calibrated predictive models for ACLF patients with two or more OFs, which outperformed existing predictive scores.