Retrospective study develops a machine learning model predicting resistance in ICU patients, suggesting future external validation is necessary.
OBJECTIVES: We developed and internally validated an interpretable machine learning model to stratify carbapenem-resistance probability among ICU patients with sterile-site Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates, using clinical data from the first 24 hours of ICU admission. METHODS: This retrospective study used the MIMIC-IV database. Adults with P. aeruginosa isolated from sterile sites >48 hours post-ICU admission were included. Feature selection employed least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), recursive feature elimination, and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) ranking, followed by bootstrap stability filtering (≥93% selection frequency). Six algorithms were compared using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration, and decision curve analysis. RESULTS: Among 567 patients (resistant: 213 [37.6%]; susceptible: 354 [62.4%]), 15 predictors were identified. XGBoost achieved the numerically highest AUROC of 0.865 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.789-0.929), sensitivity 0.791, specificity 0.873, and negative predictive value (NPV) 0.873, though DeLong tests showed no significant differences among ensemble models. Cross-validation confirmed internal stability (mean AUROC: 0.855 ± 0.043). SHAP analysis identified age, respiratory rate, thrombocytopenia, and invasive line placement as key predictors. CONCLUSIONS: The model demonstrates promising internal performance for carbapenem-resistance risk stratification. However, the cohort is conditional on culture-positive patients, predictive values are prevalence-dependent, and no external validation was performed. Results should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating, not as evidence for safe exclusion of resistance in routine practice. External validation and prospective studies are essential next steps.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: