Organizations: POLITEHNICA Bucharest National University of Science and Technology, Bucharest, Romania · Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Bucharest, Romania · General Surgery Department, University Emergency Hospital of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania · Innovation and eHealth Center, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania
We develop and analyze explainable machine learning (ML) models for sepsis outcome prediction using a novel Electronic Health Record (EHR) dataset from 12,286 hospitalizations at a large emergency hospital in Romania. The dataset includes demographics, International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) diagnostics, and 600 types of laboratory tests. This study aims to identify clinically strong predictors while achieving state-of-the-art results across three classification tasks: (1)deceased vs. discharged, (2)deceased vs. recovered, and (3)recovered vs. ameliorated. We trained five ML models to capture complex distributions while preserving clinical interpretability. Experiments explored the trade-off between feature richness and patient coverage, using subsets of the 10--50 most frequent laboratory tests. Model performance was evaluated using accuracy and area under the curve (AUC), and explainability was assessed using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). The highest performance was obtained for the deceased vs. recovered case study (AUC=0.983, accuracy=0.93). SHAP analysis identified several strong predictors such as cardiovascular comorbidities, urea levels, aspartate aminotransferase, platelet count, and eosinophil percentage. Eosinopenia emerged as a top predictor, highlighting its value as an underutilized marker that is not included in current assessment standards, while the high performance suggests the applicability of these models in clinical settings.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Descriptive statistics of the dataset: (a) age distribution, (b) sex distribution, and (c) hospitalization duration.
Subset size
Top-10
Top-20
Top-30
Top-40
Top-50
% of patients with full coverage
92.59%
72.40%
45.10%
23.99%
8.68%
Table 1: Coverage of patients from the dataset by subset size of most frequent laboratory tests.
Case study
Variant
Subset
Best Model
Acc.
Prec.
Rec.
F1
AUC
Deceased vs. Disch.
diag
top-40
HistGB
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.920
Deceased vs. Disch.
w/o diag
top-40
GB
0.794
0.794
0.794
0.794
0.866
Deceased vs. Recov.
diag
top-40
HistGB
0.930
0.932
0.930
0.930
0.983
Deceased vs. Recov.
w/o diag
top-40
SVC / LR
0.880
0.882
0.880
0.880
0.938
Recov. vs. Amelior.
diag
top-20
HistGB
0.780
0.780
0.780
0.780
0.865
Recov. vs. Amelior.
w/o diag
top-40
LR
0.690
0.691
0.690
0.690
0.730
Table 2: Best model results across all three classification tasks.
Figure 2: AUC comparison of individual classifiers for Task 1—Deceased vs. Discharged. Diagnostic feature sets (“diag”) yield higher performance than non-diagnostic ones (“nodiag”), with Gradient Boosting variants achieving the best overall results.
Figure 3: Model performance comparison (AUC) for Deceased vs. Recovered patients across diagnostic subsets.
Figure 4: Model performance comparison (AUC) for Recovered vs. Ameliorated patients across diagnostic subsets. Histogram-based Gradient Boosting models achieve the highest AUC values across all subsets.
Figure 5: SHAP summary plot for Deceased vs. Discharged top classifier (HistGB model trained on the top-40 diagnostic subset). Features are ranked by impact on mortality prediction.
Table S1 : Mapping of ICD-10 diagnostic code initials to comorbidity categories.
#
Laboratory Test
Count
% of patients
1
Urea
12,216
99.33%
2
Sodium (Na + )
12,214
99.32%
3
Potassium (K + )
12,212
99.30%
4
Glucose
12,209
99.28%
5
AST (Aspartate Aminotransferase)
12,193
99.15%
6
ALT (Alanine Aminotransferase)
12,192
99.14%
Appendix
Table S2 : Distribution of patients for top 50 most frequent laboratory tests.
Subset
Variant
Model
Accuracy
Precision
Recall
F1
AUC
10
diag
SVC
0.8184
0.8184
0.8184
0.8184
0.8981
10
diag
Random Forest
0.8178
0.8178
0.8178
0.8178
0.9000
10
diag
Gradient Boosting
0.8339
0.8339
0.8339
0.8339
0.9155
10
diag
Logistic Regression
0.8051
0.8052
0.8051
0.8051
0.8971
10
diag
HistGB
0.8350
0.8351
0.8350
0.8350
0.9144
10
nodiag
SVC
0.7658
0.7667
0.7658
0.7656
0.8399
Appendix
Table S3 : Performance of all base models for Task 1 (Deceased vs. Discharged).
Subset
Variant
Model
Accuracy
Precision
Recall
F1
AUC
10
diag
SVC
0.8767
0.8768
0.8767
0.8767
0.9556
10
diag
Random Forest
0.8814
0.8824
0.8814
0.8813
0.9560
10
diag
Gradient Boosting
0.8930
0.8931
0.8930
0.8930
0.9619
10
diag
Logistic Regression
0.8674
0.8676
0.8674
0.8674
0.9560
10
diag
HistGB
0.9116
0.9118
0.9116
0.9116
0.9734
10
nodiag
SVC
0.8140
0.8140
0.8140
0.8140
0.8925
Appendix
Table S4 : Performance of all base models for Task 2 (Deceased vs. Recovered).
Subset
Variant
Model
Accuracy
Precision
Recall
F1
AUC
10
diag
SVC
0.7535
0.7626
0.7535
0.7513
0.8122
10
diag
Random Forest
0.7465
0.7517
0.7465
0.7452
0.8216
10
diag
Gradient Boosting
0.7442
0.7521
0.7442
0.7422
0.8241
10
diag
Logistic Regression
0.7581
0.7665
0.7581
0.7562
0.8218
10
diag
HistGB
0.7651
0.7707
0.7651
0.7639
0.8374
10
nodiag
SVC
0.6628
0.6654
0.6628
0.6615
0.7352
Appendix
Table S5 : Performance of all base models for Task 3 (Recovered vs. Ameliorated).
Figure S1 : Distribution of patient outcomes at discharge. Red indicates deceased patients, while gray represents discharged patients, including improved, recovered, and worsened cases.
Figure S2 : Model accuracy comparison for Deceased vs. Discharged patients across diagnostic subsets.
Figure S3 : Model accuracy comparison for Deceased vs. Recovered patients across diagnostic subsets.
Figure S4 : Model accuracy comparison for Recovered vs. Ameliorated patients across diagnostic subsets.
Figure S5 : SHAP summary plot for Task 2—Deceased vs. Recovered.
Figure S6 : SHAP summary plot for Task 3—Recovered vs. Ameliorated.
Early sepsis prediction from electronic health records is challenged by irregular sampling, high missingness, and class imbalance. We systematically compare four modeling paradigms -- self-supervised Joint Embedding Predictive Architecture (JEPA) via masked latent prediction, self-supervised VICReg (variance-invariance-covariance regularization) with two-view augmentation, semi-supervised fine-tuning of a VICReg-pretrained encoder, and supervised Temporal Convolutional Network (TCN) -- alongside raw-feature baselines. All models share a common preprocessing pipeline of hourly binning with forward-fill imputation applied to 7 biomarkers selected via sparsity analysis from the MIMIC-III dataset. Our best model (JEPA + XGBoost + mean pooling) achieves AUPRC 0.636 at the time of onset (H0), approaching the SupMix benchmark (0.667) while using 83% fewer biomarkers. The Tier 1 pipeline -- VICReg pretraining followed by semi-supervised fine-tuning and XGBoost -- achieves AUPRC 0.510 at H0, a 3.1× improvement over the raw-feature baseline (0.165) and a 7.6% improvement over the end-to-end supervised TCN (0.474). Crucially, the fine-tuned VICReg encoder exhibits the most temporally persistent representations, degrading only 16.8% from H0 to H10 compared to 47.5% for supervised TCN and 65.3% for JEPA, demonstrating that self-supervised pretraining with task-aware fine-tuning yields features that are both sharp near onset and robust across prediction horizons.
Umair bin Mansoor, Munaf Rashid, Roomi Naqvi
Electrical Engg. Department, DHA Suffa University, Karachi, Pakistan · Salim Habib University, Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan · Intel Foundry Services, Intel, Tempe, Arizona, United States
Predictive models over structured electronic health records (EHRs) remain central to machine learning for healthcare, but few have jointly emphasized quantitative laboratory information and interpretability with respect to input medical events. We present BERT-LER, a BERT-style model for coded EHR timelines pretrained and fine-tuned from a de-identified EHR dataset of 75 million patients, that encodes laboratory test results as discrete tokens while retaining graded information through percentile-based binning, paired with Integrated Gradients for token-level attributions grounded in the input EHR sequence. We benchmark our approach on the public EHRShot benchmark suite and on an asthma severity progression study based on real-world data. This addresses a methodological gap in EHR foundation-style modeling by unifying laboratory value representation and explainability in a single framework, while assessing whether both predictive performance and explanations generalize beyond standard clinical prediction tasks. Across EHRShot and asthma tasks, BERT-LER achieves predictive performance that is competitive with, and on laboratory-related tasks often exceeds, publicly available benchmark models, and provides attributions that align with clinically known risk factors. Our architecture and explainability approach can be applied to many therapeutic areas and prediction tasks using language models trained on structured EHRs.
Jun Ni Du, Lukas Adamek, Maxim Kryukov +4
Data & Computational Science, R&D, Sanofi Toronto, Canada · Data & Computational Science, R&D, Sanofi Barcelona, Spain · Clinical Real World Evidence, R&D, Sanofi Cambridge, USA +2
Postoperative adverse events, including mortality and morbidity, remain a major global burden, many of which are preventable through early identification of high-risk patients and targeted perioperative care. Accurate risk stratification is therefore essential. With the growing availability of large-scale electronic health records (EHRs), machine learning (ML) provides a data-driven approach to model complex clinical patterns. However, existing studies vary widely in design, and methodological practices remain fragmented. This scoping review characterizes ML pipelines for surgical risk stratification and outcome prediction using EHR data. We reviewed 190 studies covering the ML workflow, including data preprocessing, algorithm selection, model evaluation, and explainability. Most studies relied on single-center private datasets with limited data modalities, while the scarcity of open-access surgical datasets constrained reproducibility and generalizability. Reporting of key preprocessing steps, including missing data handling, feature selection, and class imbalance, was often incomplete. Conventional ML models and simple neural networks predominated, whereas deep learning and multimodal approaches remained uncommon. Benchmark datasets and standardized evaluation protocols were largely absent, hindering cross-study comparisons. Only about one-third of studies incorporated explainability methods. This review identifies methodological gaps limiting clinically robust postoperative ML tools and provides a structured reference to support more rigorous, reproducible, and clinically meaningful ML development for perioperative care.
Yizhi Dong, Yuhe Ke, Hairil Rizal Abdullah +4
Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117549 · Data Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore 169608 · Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore 169857 +5