Artificial Intelligence-Based Models for Prediction of Mortality in ICU Patients: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".