PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 27, 2026Digital Health1 citationsOpen Access

Predicting blood transfusion after ICU admission in five databases: A comparison of three machine learning paradigms

View Full Paper
JSJohanna SchwinnUniversity Hospital AugsburgSSSeyedmostafa SheikhalishahiUniversity Hospital AugsburgMMMatthaeus MorhartUniversity Hospital Augsburg

Key Points

  • To compare the effectiveness of three machine learning approaches for predicting blood transfusion after ICU admission.
  • Used XGBoost as the machine learning model with 15 clinical variables.
  • Prediction assessed using a 3-hour observation followed by a 2-hour prediction window.
  • Model evaluation included internal and external validation with various performance metrics such as AUPRC and F1 score.
  • CL outperformed FL and LL in both internal validation (AUPRC range: 0.73–0.95 for CL, 0.63–0.96 for FL, 0.69–0.96 for LL) and external validation (AUPRC range: 0.61–0.89 for CL, 0.45–0.91 for FL, 0.37–0.90 for LL).
  • FL displayed variable performance depending on the dataset used.

Abstract

Objective The objective of this retrospective study is to compare three learning approaches for blood transfusion (BT) prediction after intensive care unit (ICU) admission: local learning (LL), federated learning (FL), and centralized learning (CL) across five ICU databases (eICU Collaborative Research Database, Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV, High-Resolution Intensive Care Unit Dataset, Amsterdam University Medical Center Database, University Hospital of Augsburg). Methods As machine learning model we used XGBoost and included 15 clinical variables. The prediction task consists of a 3-h observation window, followed by a 2-h prediction window. We evaluated the models using internal and external validation with area under the receiver-operator curve, area under the precision-recall curve, PPV, Brier score and F1 score. Results CL consistently outperformed FL and LL in both internal validation (AUPRC range: 0.73–0.95 (CL) vs 0.63–0.96 (FL) and 0.69–0.96 (LL)) and external validation (AUPRC range: 0.61–0.89 (CL) vs 0.45–0.91 (FL) and 0.37–0.90 (LL)). FL showed variable performance across datasets. Conclusions The complexity of the multivariable clinical prediction of BTs may create substantial challenges for FL effectiveness, particularly under high data heterogeneity conditions that are common in healthcare.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Schwinn et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69eefd82fede9185760d4408https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076261428383
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1A Comparative Analysis of Federated and Centralized Learning for SpO2 Prediction in Five Critical Care Databases2024 · 2 citations
  2. 2The myth of generalisability in clinical research and machine learning in health care2020 · 470 citations
  3. 3Worldwide audit of blood transfusion practice in critically ill patients2018 · 132 citations
  4. 4Federated Learning with Non-IID Data2018 · 1,915 citations
  5. 5How do we use electronic clinical decision support and feedback to promote good transfusion practice2020 · 26 citations