Stop asking if AI will replace ICU doctors! Start asking how it will radically transform their practice.

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.

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.

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. A pragmatic risk-stratified framework for using large language models in intensive care medicine: A narrative review.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026
   Review
2. Epistemic authority and medical AI: epistemological differences and challenges in medical practice.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026
   Article
3. Artificial intelligence in medicine: a position paper by the Italian Society of Internal Medicine.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026
   Article
4. Predicting Do-Not-Resuscitate Decisions in Critically Ill Patients Through Using Multitask Learning: A Retrospective Study of the MIMIC-IV Database.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
   Article

Corrections and comments

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

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.