MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401634790 · doi:10.1177/08850666241277134

Artificial Intelligence-Based Models for Prediction of Mortality in ICU Patients: A Scoping Review

2024· review· en· W4401634790 on OpenAlex
Orkideh Olang, Sana Mohseni, Ali Shahabinezhad, Yasaman Hamidianshirazi, Amireza Goli, Mansour Abolghasemian, Mohammad Ali Shafiee, Mehdi Aarabi, Mohammad Alavinia, Passant Shaker

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intensive Care Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteRoyal Alexandra HospitalUniversity of AlbertaToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care unitMEDLINERelevance (law)Artificial intelligenceOutcome (game theory)Machine learningIntensive careHealth carePredictive modellingIntensive care medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and ObjectiveHealthcare professionals may be able to anticipate more accurately a patient's timing of death and assess their possibility of recovery by implementing a real-time clinical decision support system. Using such a tool, the healthcare system can better understand a patient's condition and make more informed judgements about distributing limited resources. This scoping review aimed to analyze various death prediction AI (Artificial Intelligence) algorithms that have been used in ICU (Intensive Care Unit) patient populations.MethodsThe search strategy of this study involved keyword combinations of outcome and patient setting such as mortality, survival, ICU, terminal care. These terms were used to perform database searches in MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed up to July 2022. The variables, characteristics, and performance of the identified predictive models were summarized. The accuracy of the models was compared using their Area Under the Curve (AUC) values.ResultsDatabases search yielded an initial pool of 8271 articles. A two-step screening process was then applied: first, titles and abstracts were reviewed for relevance, reducing the pool to 429 articles. Next, a full-text review was conducted, further narrowing down the selection to 400 key studies. Out of 400 studies on different tools or models for prediction of mortality in ICUs, 16 papers focused on AI-based models which were ultimately included in this study that have deployed different AI-based and machine learning models to make a prediction about negative patient outcome. The accuracy and performance of the different models varied depending on the patient populations and medical conditions. It was found that AI models compared with traditional tools like SAP3 or APACHE IV score were more accurate in death prediction, with some models achieving an AUC of up to 92.9%. The overall mortality rate ranged from 5% to more than 60% in different studies.ConclusionWe found that AI-based models exhibit varying performance across different patient populations. To enhance the accuracy of mortality prediction, we recommend customizing models for specific patient groups and medical contexts. By doing so, healthcare professionals may more effectively assess mortality risk and tailor treatments accordingly. Additionally, incorporating additional variables-such as genetic information-into new models can further improve their accuracy.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.250 · 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