Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38589940›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2024

Use of artificial intelligence in critical care: opportunities and obstacles.

Michael R Pinsky, Armando Bedoya, Azra Bihorac, Leo Celi, Matthew Churpek, Nicoleta J Economou-Zavlanos, Paul Elbers, Suchi Saria, Vincent Liu, Patrick G Lyons and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

78 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Ethical and responsible use of artificial intelligence in medical education.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

14 authors.

Michael R PinskyDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 638 Scaife Hall, 3550 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15261, USA. pinsky@pitt.edu.
Armando BedoyaAlgorithm-Based Clinical Decision Support (ABCDS) Oversight, Office of Vice Dean of Data Science, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.
Azra BihoracDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine Gainesville, Malachowsky Hall, 1889 Museum Road, Suite 2410, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA.
Leo CeliLaboratory for Computational Physiology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Matthew ChurpekDepartment of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI, 53792, USA.
Nicoleta J Economou-ZavlanosAlgorithm-Based Clinical Decision Support (ABCDS) Oversight, Office of Vice Dean of Data Science, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.
Paul ElbersDepartment of Intensive Care, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, NL, USA.
Suchi SariaDepartment of Computer Science, Whiting School of Engineering, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Johns Hopkins University, 333 Malone Hall, 300 Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Vincent LiuDepartment of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 S.W. Sam Jackson Park Road, Mail Code UHN67, Portland, OR, 97239-3098, USA.
Patrick G LyonsDepartment of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 S.W. Sam Jackson Park Road, Mail Code UHN67, Portland, OR, 97239-3098, USA.
Benjamin ShickelDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine Gainesville, Malachowsky Hall, 1889 Museum Road, Suite 2410, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA.
Patrick ToralDepartment of Intensive Care, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, NL, USA.
David TschollInstitute of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Gilles ClermontDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 638 Scaife Hall, 3550 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15261, USA.

Funding

Predicting Patient Instability Noninvasively for Nursing Care-Two (PPINNC-2)R01NR013912 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI AL-ZAITI, SALAH S, CLERMONT, GILLES · 2012 to 2025
$7.0M
Autonomous diagnosis and management of the critically ill during air transport (ADMIT)R01HL141916 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI PINSKY, MICHAEL R · 2019 to 2022
$2.9M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL141916NIH HHS HL141916NINR NIH HHS R01 NR013912
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPerhaps nowhere else in the healthcare system than in the intensive care unit environment are the challenges to create useful models with direct time-critical clinical applications more relevant and the obstacles to achieving those goals more massive. Machine learning-based artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to define states and predict future events are commonplace activities of modern life. However, their penetration into acute care medicine has been slow, stuttering and uneven. Major obstacles to widespread effective application of AI approaches to the real-time care of the critically ill patient exist and need to be addressed. MAIN BODY: Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) in acute and critical care environments support clinicians, not replace them at the bedside. As will be discussed in this review, the reasons are many and include the immaturity of AI-based systems to have situational awareness, the fundamental bias in many large databases that do not reflect the target population of patient being treated making fairness an important issue to address and technical barriers to the timely access to valid data and its display in a fashion useful for clinical workflow. The inherent "black-box" nature of many predictive algorithms and CDSS makes trustworthiness and acceptance by the medical community difficult. Logistically, collating and curating in real-time multidimensional data streams of various sources needed to inform the algorithms and ultimately display relevant clinical decisions support format that adapt to individual patient responses and signatures represent the efferent limb of these systems and is often ignored during initial validation efforts. Similarly, legal and commercial barriers to the access to many existing clinical databases limit studies to address fairness and generalizability of predictive models and management tools.

conclusionsAI-based CDSS are evolving and are here to stay. It is our obligation to be good shepherds of their use and further development.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceCritical CareDelivery of Health CareHumansIntensive Care UnitsComplexityHealthcare policyMachine learningPredictive analyticsSystems engineering

Identifiers

PMID38589940
PMCPMC11000355

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.