Machine learning for predicting successful extubation in patients receiving mechanical ventilation
Yutaka Igarashi
Kei Ogawa2 
Shoji Yokobori- 1Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan
- 2Department of Industrial Administration, Tokyo University of Science, Chiba, Japan
Ventilator liberation is one of the most critical decisions in the intensive care unit; however, prediction of extubation failure is difficult, and the proportion thereof remains high. Machine learning can potentially provide a breakthrough in the prediction of extubation success. A total of seven studies on the prediction of extubation success using machine learning have been published. These machine learning models were developed using data from electronic health records, 8–78 features, and algorithms such as artificial neural network, LightGBM, and XGBoost. Sensitivity ranged from 0.64 to 0.96, specificity ranged from 0.73 to 0.85, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranged from 0.70 to 0.98. The features deemed most important included duration of mechanical ventilation, PaO2, blood urea nitrogen, heart rate, and Glasgow Coma Scale score. Although the studies had limitations, prediction of extubation success by machine learning has the potential to be a powerful tool. Further studies are needed to assess whether machine learning prediction reduces the incidence of extubation failure or prolongs the duration of ventilator use, thereby increasing tracheostomy and ventilator-related complications and mortality.
Introduction
Invasive mechanical ventilation is an essential component of invasive care. The number of patients receiving ventilator care has been reported to be 270–314 per 100,000 population per year (1), and this number has increased dramatically due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Approximately half of the patients on ventilators died (2), and more than one million people have died of COVID-19 in the US (3).
Ventilator liberation comprises one of the most critical decisions in the intensive care unit (ICU). If ventilated patients are extubated too early, they may require reintubation, which prolongs hospital stay and increases mortality (4–6). On the other hand, longer ventilation increases complications such as ventilator-associated pneumonia and mortality; thus, it is critical to determine the optimal timing of extubation for patients receiving ventilation (7). Various predictors and protocols have been used to predict successful extubation (8), but single factors are not accurate (9, 10). Although the use of protocols has reduced the duration of ventilator management and ICU stay (11), the proportion of extubation failure remains ≥10% (12). There is no standardized protocol for extubation, and each facility has its own criteria (13).
In recent years, electronic health records have been collected in ICUs, and these data are publicly available. Simultaneously, the application of machine learning in the medical field has rapidly progressed, making it possible to make various predictions in real time regarding patients in ICUs (14). Machine learning can potentially be a breakthrough in the prediction of extubation success, for which many factors are involved in a complex manner. To date, several papers have been published on the prediction of extubation outcomes using machine learning. In this mini-review, the methods and results of previous studies are summarized, and current issues and future directions have been reviewed.
Protocols for scheduled extubation
Patients receiving ventilation are evaluated for extubation when the primary disease has improved, oxygenation and hemodynamics are stable, and the patient is breathing spontaneously and normally. A spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) is performed to assess whether the patient can tolerate minimal ventilatory support (15). SBT is performed with oxygenation <50%, low positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (e.g., ≤ 5 cmH2O), and low PS (e.g., ≤ 5 cmH2O) for a certain period of time, and if there are no abnormalities in circulation or respiration, the patient is deemed to be ready for extubation. If the patient has upper airway problems (post upper airway surgery, positive cuff-leak test, history of difficult intubation), steroids may be administered before extubation (16). If the patient is at high risk for respiratory failure (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic respiratory failure, obesity, overhydration), prophylactic non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (non-invasive positive pressure ventilation and nasal high-flow) should be prepared after extubation.
Thus, during SBT and weaning, vital signs related to respiration and circulation (blood pressure, pulse rate, respiratory rate, SpO2, and boosting agent levels), arterial blood gas tests (PaO2, pH), and ventilator measurements (tidal volume, minute volume, and rapid shallow breathing index) have been used as criteria for extubation. Since all machine learning studies are backward-looking studies, the data are, in principle, obtained by performing SBT. Therefore, the process of performing SBT and that of determining extubation from the collected data remains the same when predicting extubation by machine learning.
Aim of machine learning prediction
The most important goal of machine learning is to improve the prediction of the success or failure of extubation. In particular, it is expected that machine learning models can predict extubation failure and thereby reduce its incidence. Conversely, if a machine learning model is too conservative, in order to reduce the number of extubation failures, the period of ventilator management may be prolonged and tracheotomies may increase. Therefore, it is important to maintain a balance between these two factors.
Further, in some machine learning models, feature importance may represent objective indicators to explain the model. It is possible to compare the important features with the relevant guidelines to ensure that there is validity in the model's explanation. It is also possible to identify unknown factors that have not been used to determine extubation but are of high importance.
However, machine learning models cannot predict the causes of extubation failure, although reasons for extubation failure, such as laryngeal edema, are important. The purpose of machine learning models is not to predict the causes of extubation failure but to support decision-making.
Methods of previous studies
A total of seven studies on the prediction of extubation using machine learning were published between 2015 and 2021 (Table 1). We compared the differences between the methods of each study; studies on ventilator weaning were excluded (24).
Table 1. Summary of the seven studies.
Dataset
Some studies used single-center ICU databases with hundreds to thousands of cases, while others used nationwide databases for COVID-19 or large free-access databases, with thousands to tens of thousands of cases. For example, the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC) is a large, single-center, free-access database comprising information relating to patients admitted to the ICU of a large tertiary care hospital with a variety of diseases, such as myocardial infarction, postoperative complications, medical complications, and trauma (25). Machine learning using such a database may be adaptable to patients with a wide variety of diseases.
The dataset is divided into training data for model development and test data for evaluation. If multiple data from one patient are used to increase the sample size, data from the same patient may be included in both training and test data. If a test is performed on the data of the patient for whom the model was developed, it will be a so-called cheat, resulting in a higher than actual accuracy. Therefore, one patient's data must be used in either the training or test data.
Features
The features used for prediction can be categorized as follows: demographic information, vital signs, laboratory results, ventilator information, clinical intervention, and clinical scores (Table 2). Features that are clinically important and are frequently used in clinical practice should be included in the protocols.
Table 2. Classification and listing of features.
The largest number of features that have been used for the prediction of extubation success thus far is 78. Using a larger number of features may result in more accurate predictions and may help identify unknown features that affect predictions. On the other hand, as the number of features increases, the proportion of missing values also increases because they may not have been measured; if this proportion exceeds a certain percentage, the missing values are excluded from the list of features. Missing values can be compensated for to a certain extent, but an increase in the number of missing values affects the development and prediction of the machine learning model. Some studies have developed models using all possible features, as well as new models using only features of high importance. For example, in the study by Chen et al. (19) features with missing data of ≥40% were not used, and missing values were compensated for by using the average values of the other patients. The model was initially developed with 68 features, and finally, a prediction model was developed with 36 of the most important features. A comparison of the accuracy based on the number of features using LightGBM, which had the highest accuracy, revealed that the accuracy ranged from 0.8023 to 0.8020, sensitivity from 0.7485 to 0.7477, specificity from 0.8327 to 0.8394, and area under the curve from 0.8130 to 0.8198; all these values were almost equivalent.
Outcomes (labeling)
Supervised learning involves labeling the correct answer (success or failure), called annotation. Failed extubation was defined as reintubation within 48 or 72 h of extubation in previous studies. The proportion of extubation failure ranged from 5 to 26%.
In general, most studies on ventilator liberation define extubation failure as reintubation within 24–72 h (26, 27), or up to 7 days (28, 29). It is difficult to define patients who require non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) or nasal high-flow as successful extubations. However, studies have shown that post-extubation NPPV or nasal high-flow reduces reintubation compared to standard oxygen therapy, and clinical practice guidelines also recommend nasal high-flow for high-risk patients (30–34). Therefore, the use of NPPV or nasal high flow cannot be defined as extubation failure as they are sometimes used routinely.
Machine learning algorithms
In general, artificial neural networks are models that mimic parts of the neural circuits of the brain, which are highly accurate but cannot be explained, like a black box. On the other hand, since medicine emphasizes causal relationships and accountability to patients, models that can be explained by the importance of features, Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) values, and decision trees are sometimes preferred. This method is often used to improve performance by creating multiple weak models (weak learners), called boosting, where the previous learner is repeatedly modified by the next learner.
Predictive models were built using multiple algorithms and compared for accuracy. No model was consistently accurate, and results varied across the studies. It is difficult to determine which algorithm is most appropriate by comparing the values of accuracy across studies because some studies do not list all scores.
Validation
When machine learning models are developed at a single institution or with a small number of cases, there is a possibility that biased models will be created. Therefore, it is necessary to perform external validation to evaluate the accuracy using data that were not used for model construction. By evaluating the accuracy using external data, it is possible to know if the machine learning model is generalizable. However, only one study conducted external validation (22).
Performance evaluation
The common performance metrics used to evaluate the predictive performance of the model are accuracy, sensitivity (recall), precision (positive predictive value), specificity, and F1 score. In the equations given below, successful extubation is described as positive and failed extubation as negative. Note that in the opposite case, sensitivity and specificity are opposite (Table 1).
Accuracy is the ratio of correct predictions to the total number of predictions.
TP, true positive; TN, true negative; FP, false positive; FN, false negative.
Sensitivity (recall) is the ratio of true positives to total actual positives. It represents the proportion of patients who underwent successful extubation and in whom extubation was predicted to be successful.
Precision (positive prediction value) is the ratio of true positives to total predicted positives.
Specificity is the ratio of true negatives to total negatives. It indicates the proportion of patients who underwent unsuccessful extubation and in whom extubation was predicted to be unsuccessful.
Among the seven studies, sensitivity ranged from 0.64 to 0.96, precision ranged from 0.91 to 0.97, specificity ranged from 0.73 to 0.85, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranged from 0.70 to 0.98 (Table 1).
Feature importance
Three studies showed the importance of features and two studies showed SHAP values. In the study by Chen et al., the top 10 most important features were duration of mechanical ventilation, PaO2, PaCO2, arterial pH, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), mean heart rate, weight, age, creatine, and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score (19). In the study by Otaguro et al. (21) the top 10 most important features were duration of mechanical ventilation, age, PEEP, lactate dehydrogenase, activated partial thromboplastin time, alveolar arterial oxygen tension difference gradient, BUN, GCS score, C-reactive protein (CRP), and albumin. In the study by Zhao et al. (22) the top 10 most important features were stroke, respiratory rate, antibiotic type, pressure support ventilation level, central venous pressure, mechanical ventilation duration, SpO2, PEEP, heart rate, and number of successful SBTs.
Mechanical ventilation duration was included in three studies; PaO2 (or SpO2), BUN, heart rate, GCS, age, and PEEP in two studies; BUN, creatinine, CRP, and albumin were not included in the protocols, but may have influenced the success or failure of extubation because these features reflect the patient's general condition (BUN and creatinine reflect renal function, CRP reflects inflammatory status, and albumin reflects nutritional status).
Discussion
We reviewed studies that used machine learning to predict the success or failure of extubation. Protocols determine extubation based on whether a patient meets certain defined conditions, but machine learning makes predictions based on certain features. Currently, it remains unclear whether protocols or machine learning contributes to a higher extubation success rate.
Performance evaluation
A model with high specificity is preferable for predicting extubation failure. On the other hand, there exists a trade-off relationship: the higher the specificity, the lower the sensitivity. Therefore, the number of patients in which extubation is actually possible but expected to fail increases. This increases the risk of prolonging the duration of ventilator management and increasing tracheostomies.
For example, Zhao's study has the highest specificity of 0.85 but the lowest sensitivity of 0.64. Therefore, this model was able to predict the highest number of patients who failed extubation, so if this model predicts successful extubation, the probability of successful extubation is quite high, with a precision of 0.97. This model could reduce the rate of extubation failure from its current value of 11% to a theoretical 3%. In contrast, a model with high sensitivity can predict more patients who will succeed extubation. However, this model cannot be used for monitoring for possible early extubation. These models were trained on patients who underwent SBT and were deemed extubatable, and did not include patients whose final decision was not to be extubated. As a result, these models cannot be automatically used for all patients in the ICU to alert the timing of extubation, and must be considered as a support tool aimed to validate the physician's decision upon extubation. As the sensitivity increases, the specificity decreases, which leads to an aggressive model that predicts success in patients who cannot be extubated. A mode with high sensitivity and low specigicity is not suitable for this purpose. Therefore, a model with high specificity that can predict as many extubation failures as possible is preferred. If a conservative model for extubation is used in clinical practice, it is important to use the neative predictive valie as an indicator to avoid prolonged ventilatory management.
Problems with machine learning methods
The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) serves as a guideline for the development, validation, and update of clinical prediction models (35). The TRIPOD statement aims to increase the transparency of reporting on prediction models, regardless of the research methodology. We believe that all studies on prediction models using machine learning should be reported according to the TRIPOD checklist.
Several of the reviewed studies included issues related to imbalanced data and validation. In many databases, the failure rate of extubation was 10–20%. The number of successful and failed extubations was 9:1 to 8:2 in imbalanced data, and even if there was a model that predicted all successful extubations, it would have an accuracy of 80–90%, which could lead to a model that excessively predicts successful extubations. In this case, balancing the number of samples by under or oversampling can prevent the model from being overly predictive of successful extubation. Under or oversampling should be done in models that predict successful or failed extubation because the dataset is likely to be unbalanced. Some of the studies used data from multiple time points prior to extubation to increase the sample size for extubation failure, whereas some used patient data that were used as training data during cross validation as test data, which may have resulted in a higher than actual accuracy. External validation should be performed on databases that were not used as training data. In a single-center dataset, the unique extubation process of the institution may have influenced the development of the machine learning model. ICU datasets are freely available [Amsterdam UMCdb (36), eICU-CRD (37), HiRID (38), and MIMIC-IV (25)]; it is possible to perform external validation using these datasets. Conversely, it is also possible to build a machine learning model using these datasets and perform external validation using the dataset of a single institution.
Future prospects
All the studies reviewed here were retrospective, and no prospective studies have been conducted thus far. It is necessary to evaluate the accuracy of machine learning via prospective studies and to compare it with the physicians' decisions. However, since it is ethically questionable to make an extubation decision based solely on the results of machine learning, it is necessary to evaluate the predictions and outcomes of machine learning when the physician makes the decision to extubate, assuming that the results of machine learning are blinded to the physician. Furthermore, it is necessary to consider how synergy between using the protocol and the predictions of machine learning can be obtained.
Finally, to verify whether machine learning predictions are useful in clinical practice, a study is required in which a group of patients are randomly divided into two groups: those who underwent extubation using machine learning predictions and those who underwent extubation without using machine learning predictions. Even if machine learning reduces the incidence of extubation failure, outcomes need to be evaluated to assess whether it prolongs the duration of ventilator use and increases performance of tracheostomies, ventilator-related complications, and mortality.
Author contributions
Conception and design: YI. Acquisition of data: YI, KO, KN, and SO. Analysis and interpretation of data and drafting or revising the article: YI, KO, KN, SO, HO, and SY. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This work was supported by KAKENHI 20K17876, Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Carson SS, Cox CE, Holmes GM, Howard A, Carey TS. The changing epidemiology of mechanical ventilation: a population-based study. J Intensive Care Med. (2006) 21:173–82. doi: 10.1177/0885066605282784
2. Lim ZJ, Subramaniam A, Ponnapa Reddy M, Blecher G, Kadam U, Afroz A, et al. Case fatality rates for patients with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. a meta-analysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. (2021) 203:54–66. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202006-2405OC
3. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard (2022). Available online at: https://covid19.who.int/ (accessed June 1, 2022).
4. Melsen WG, Rovers MM, Groenwold RH, Bergmans DC, Camus C, Bauer TT, et al. Attributable mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised prevention studies. Lancet Infect Dis. (2013) 13:665–71. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70081-1
5. Rengel KF, Hayhurst CJ, Pandharipande PP, Hughes CG. Long-term cognitive and functional impairments after critical illness. Anesth Analg. (2019) 128:772–80. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004066
6. Frutos-Vivar F, Esteban A, Apezteguia C, González M, Arabi Y, Restrepo MI, et al. Outcome of reintubated patients after scheduled extubation. J Crit Care. (2011) 26:502–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2010.12.015
7. Esteban A, Anzueto A, Frutos F, Alía I, Brochard L, Stewart TE, et al. Characteristics and outcomes in adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a 28-day international study. JAMA. (2002) 287:345–55. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.3.345
8. Baptistella AR, Sarmento FJ, da Silva KR, Baptistella SF, Taglietti M, Zuquello RÁ, et al. Predictive factors of weaning from mechanical ventilation and extubation outcome: a systematic review. J Crit Care. (2018) 48:56–62. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.08.023
9. Heunks LM, van der Hoeven JG. Clinical review: the ABC of weaning failure–a structured approach. Crit Care. (2010) 14:245. doi: 10.1186/cc9296
10. Trivedi V, Chaudhuri D, Jinah R, Piticaru J, Agarwal A, Liu K, et al. The usefulness of the rapid shallow breathing index in predicting successful extubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest. (2022) 161:97–111. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.06.030
11. Blackwood B, Alderdice F, Burns K, Cardwell C, Lavery G, O'Halloran P. Use of weaning protocols for reducing duration of mechanical ventilation in critically ill adult patients: cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. (2011) 342:c7237. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c7237
12. Thille AW, Richard JC, Brochard L. The decision to extubate in the intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. (2013) 187:1294–302. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201208-1523CI
13. Burns KEA, Rizvi L, Cook DJ, Lebovic G, Dodek P, Villar J, et al. Ventilator weaning and discontinuation practices for critically ill patients. JAMA. (2021) 325:1173–84. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.2384
14. Meyer A, Zverinski D, Pfahringer B, Kempfert J, Kuehne T, Sündermann SH, et al. Machine learning for real-time prediction of complications in critical care: a retrospective study. Lancet Respir Med. (2018) 6:905–14. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30300-X
15. Esteban A, Frutos F, Tobin MJ, Alía I, Solsona JF, Valverdú I, et al. A comparison of four methods of weaning patients from mechanical ventilation. Spanish Lung Fail Collab Group N Engl J Med. (1995) 332:345–50. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199502093320601
16. Fan T, Wang G, Mao B, Xiong Z, Zhang Y, Liu X, et al. Prophylactic administration of parenteral steroids for preventing airway complications after extubation in adults: meta-analysis of randomised placebo controlled trials. BMJ. (2008) 337:a1841. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1841
17. Kuo HJ, Chiu HW, Lee CN, Chen TT, Chang CC, Bien MY. Improvement in the prediction of ventilator weaning outcomes by an artificial neural network in a medical ICU. Respir Care. (2015) 60:1560–9.
18. Hsieh MH, Hsieh MJ, Chen CM, Hsieh CC, Chao CM, Lai CC. An artificial neural network model for predicting successful extubation in intensive care units. J Clin Med. (2018) 7.
19. Chen T, Xu J, Ying H, Chen X, Feng R, Fang X, et al. Prediction of extubation failure for intensive care unit patients using light gradient boosting machine. IEEE Access. (2019) 7:150960–8. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2946980
20. Fabregat A, Magret M, Ferre JA, Vernet A, Guasch N, Rodriguez A, et al. A machine learning decision-making tool for extubation in intensive care unit patients. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. (2021) 200:105869.
21. Otaguro T, Tanaka H, Igarashi Y, Tagami T, Masuno T, Yokobori S, et al. Machine learning for prediction of successful extubation of mechanical ventilated patients in an intensive care unit: a retrospective observational study. J Nippon Med Sch. (2021) 88:408–17. doi: 10.1272/jnms.JNMS.2021_88-508
22. Zhao QY, Wang H, Luo JC, Luo MH, Liu LP Yu SJ, et al. Development and validation of a machine-learning model for prediction of extubation failure in intensive care units. Front Med. (2021) 8:676343. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.676343
23. Fleuren LM, Dam TA, Tonutti M, de Bruin DP, Lalisang RCA, Gommers D, et al. Predictors for extubation failure in COVID-19 patients using a machine learning approach. Crit Care. (2021) 25:448.
24. Kwong MT, Colopy GW, Weber AM, Ercole A, Bergmann JH. The efficacy and effectiveness of machine learning for weaning in mechanically ventilated patients at the intensive care unit: a systematic review. Bio-Des Manufact. (2019) 2:31–40. doi: 10.1007/s42242-018-0030-1
25. Johnson A, Bulgarelli L, Pollard T, Horng S, Celi LA, Mark R. MIMIC-IV (version 1.0). In: PhysioNet. (2021). doi: 10.13026/7vcr-e114
26. Smina M, Salam A, Khamiees M, Gada P, Amoateng-Adjepong Y, Manthous CA. Cough peak flows and extubation outcomes. Chest. (2003) 124:262–8. doi: 10.1378/chest.124.1.262
27. Martinez A, Seymour C, Nam M. Minute ventilation recovery time: a predictor of extubation outcome. Chest. (2003) 123:1214–21. doi: 10.1378/chest.123.4.1214
28. Epstein SK, Ciubotaru RL, Wong JB. Effect of failed extubation on the outcome of mechanical ventilation. Chest. (1997) 112:186–92. doi: 10.1378/chest.112.1.186
29. Esteban A, Alía I, Gordo F, Fernández R, Solsona JF, Vallverdú I, et al. Extubation outcome after spontaneous breathing trials with T-tube or pressure support ventilation. The Spanish lung failure collaborative group. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. (1997) 156:459–65. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.156.2.9610109
30. Maggiore SM, Idone FA, Vaschetto R, Festa R, Cataldo A, Antonicelli F, et al. Nasal high-flow versus Venturi mask oxygen therapy after extubation. Effects on oxygenation, comfort, and clinical outcome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. (2014) 190:282–8. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201402-0364OC
31. Hernández G, Vaquero C, Colinas L, Cuena R, González P, Canabal A, et al. Effect of post-extubation high-flow nasal cannula vs noninvasive ventilation on reintubation and post-extubation respiratory failure in high-risk patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. (2016) 316:1565–74. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.14194
32. Hernández G, Vaquero C, González P, Subira C, Frutos-Vivar F, Rialp G, et al. Effect of post-extubation high-flow nasal cannula vs conventional oxygen therapy on reintubation in low-risk patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. (2016) 315:1354–61. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.2711
33. Thille AW, Muller G, Gacouin A, Coudroy R, Decavèle M, Sonneville R, et al. Effect of post-extubation high-flow nasal oxygen with noninvasive ventilation vs. high-flow nasal oxygen alone on reintubation among patients at high risk of extubation failure: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. (2019) 322:1465–75. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.14901
34. Rochwerg B, Brochard L, Elliott MW, Hess D, Hill NS, Nava S, et al. Official ERS/ATS clinical practice guidelines: non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. Eur Respir J. (2017) 50:1602426. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02426-2016
35. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. BMJ. (2015) 350:g7594. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7594
36. Thoral PJ, Peppink JM, Driessen RH, Sijbrands EJG, Kompanje EJO, Kaplan L, et al. Sharing ICU patient data responsibly under the society of critical care medicine/European society of intensive care medicine joint data science collaboration: the Amsterdam university medical centers database (AmsterdamUMCdb) example. Crit Care Med. (2021) 49:e563–77. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004916
37. Pollard TJ, Johnson AEW, Raffa JD, Celi LA, Mark RG, Badawi O. The eICU collaborative research database, a freely available multi-center database for critical care research. Sci Data. (2018) 5:180178. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2018.178
Keywords: extubation, intensive care unit, machine learning, mechanical ventilation, ventilator
Citation: Igarashi Y, Ogawa K, Nishimura K, Osawa S, Ohwada H and Yokobori S (2022) Machine learning for predicting successful extubation in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Front. Med. 9:961252. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.961252
Received: 04 June 2022; Accepted: 19 July 2022;
Published: 11 August 2022.
Edited by:
Savino Spadaro, University of Ferrara, ItalyReviewed by:
Warwick Wolf Butt, Royal Children's Hospital, AustraliaRobert Edward Kearney, McGill University, Canada
Copyright © 2022 Igarashi, Ogawa, Nishimura, Osawa, Ohwada and Yokobori. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Yutaka Igarashi, igarashiy@nms.ac.jp