MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394722215 · doi:10.2196/57026

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Prediction Models Based on AI: Scoping Review

2024· article· en· W4394722215 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jinbo Zhang, Pingping Yang, Lu Zeng, Shan Li, Jiamei Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNosocomial Infections in ICU
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPneumoniaVentilator-associated pneumoniaMedicineIntensive care medicineComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a serious complication of mechanical ventilation therapy that affects patients' treatments and prognoses. Owing to its excellent data mining capabilities, artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly used to predict VAP. Objective: This paper reviews VAP prediction models that are based on AI, providing a reference for the early identification of high-risk groups in future clinical practice. Methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. The Wanfang database, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched to identify relevant articles. Study selection and data extraction were independently conducted by 2 reviewers. The data extracted from the included studies were synthesized narratively. Results: Of the 137 publications retrieved, 11 were included in this scoping review. The included studies reported the use of AI for predicting VAP. All 11 studies predicted VAP occurrence, and studies on VAP prognosis were excluded. Further, these studies used text data, and none of them involved imaging data. Public databases were the primary sources of data for model building (studies: 6/11, 55%), and 5 studies had sample sizes of <1000. Machine learning was the primary algorithm for studying the VAP prediction models. However, deep learning and large language models were not used to construct VAP prediction models. The random forest model was the most commonly used model (studies: 5/11, 45%). All studies only performed internal validations, and none of them addressed how to implement and apply the final model in real-life clinical settings. Conclusions: This review presents an overview of studies that used AI to predict and diagnose VAP. AI models have better predictive performance than traditional methods and are expected to provide indispensable tools for VAP risk prediction in the future. However, the current research is in the model construction and validation stage, and the implementation of and guidance for clinical VAP prediction require further research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicNosocomial Infections in ICUFrench-language works237,207