Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Explainable Retrospective Sepsis Classification Based on Elixhauser Comorbidity Groups Using Machine and Deep Learning on MIMIC-IV.

Created on 13 Aug 2026

Authors

Ying-Chia Wu, Chung-Hsin Lee, Chiung-Chyi Shen, Wen-Yu Cheng, Yi-Chin Yang, Tsung-Wei Wang, Wei-Hsin Hung, Meng-Hsiun Tsai

Published in

Journal of clinical medicine. Volume 15. Issue 15. Jul 30, 2026. Epub Jul 30, 2026.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Sepsis is clinically heterogeneous, and comorbidities may alter physiological patterns associated with sepsis status. This study examined whether comorbidity-specific modeling revealed differences in retrospective sepsis discrimination. Methods: MIMIC-IV data were analyzed across 27 Elixhauser-based analytical subgroups using Random Forest, XGBoost, CatBoost, LightGBM, AdaBoost, multilayer perceptron, TabNet, and FT-Transformer. Available neural-model scripts used a stratified 80/20 training-evaluation split. Class imbalance was addressed using training-partition SMOTE and model-specific loss or sampling settings. SHAP was used to describe model-attributed feature contributions. Results: Tree-based ensembles achieved ROC-AUC values above 0.80 in many subgroups, whereas neural models showed more variable performance and trade-offs between discrimination and sepsis-class recall. Red cell distribution width, age, and magnesium were frequently emphasized by the fitted models. Conclusions: The findings demonstrate subgroup- and model-specific differences in retrospective sepsis-status discrimination. Because a verified pre-sepsis feature-time boundary was not enforced, the results should not be interpreted as prospectively validated early prediction. External validation, calibration, and decision-analytic evaluation are required before clinical use.

PMID:
42590064
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 13 Aug 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 3
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement