Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36543940›Full record

ArticleCommunications medicine2022

Identifying and evaluating barriers for the implementation of machine learning in the intensive care unit.

Ellie D'Hondt, Thomas J Ashby, Imen Chakroun, Thomas Koninckx, Roel Wuyts

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Big Data in Stroke: How to Use Big Data to Make the Next Management Decision.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ellie D'HondtExascience Life Lab, imec, Leuven, Belgium. ellie.dhondt@imec.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1451-4569
Thomas J AshbyExascience Life Lab, imec, Leuven, Belgium. Tom.Ashby@imec.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9259-6475
Imen ChakrounExascience Life Lab, imec, Leuven, Belgium. Imen.Chakroun@imec.be.
Thomas KoninckxIndependent Consultant, Leuven, Belgium.
Roel WuytsExascience Life Lab, imec, Leuven, Belgium. Roel.Wuyts@imec.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4236-995X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite apparent promise and the availability of numerous examples in the literature, machine learning models are rarely used in practice in ICU units. This mismatch suggests that there are poorly understood barriers preventing uptake, which we aim to identify.

methodsWe begin with a qualitative study with 29 interviews of 40 Intensive Care Unit-, hospital- and MedTech company staff members. As a follow-up to the study, we attempt to quantify some of the technical issues raised. To perform experiments we selected two models based on criteria such as medical relevance. Using these models we measure the loss of performance in predictive models due to drift over time, change of available patient features, scarceness of data, and deploying a model in a different context to the one it was built in.

resultsThe qualitative study confirms our assumptions on the potential of AI-driven analytics for patient care, as well as showing the prevalence and type of technical blocking factors that are responsible for its slow uptake. The experiments confirm that each of these issues can cause important loss of predictive model performance, depending on the model and the issue.

conclusionsBased on the qualitative study and quantitative experiments we conclude that more research on practical solutions to enable AI-driven innovation in Intensive Care Units is needed. Furthermore, the general poor situation with respect to public, usable implementations of predictive models would appear to limit the possibilities for both the scientific repeatability of the underlying research and the transfer of this research into practice.

Identifiers

PMID36543940
PMCPMC9768782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.