ReviewCritical care (London, England)2025
Can we predict the future of respiratory failure prediction?
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Physician Gestalt Compared With Artificial Intelligence Model to Predict Intubation in Critically Ill Patients.Critical care explorations · 2026Observational
- Patterns and outcomes of real-world high-flow nasal cannula use: a multi-hospital retrospective cohort study.Critical care science · 2026Observational
- Predicting extubation failure in patients with cardiorespiratory decompensation: development and validation of an interpretable machine learning-based risk calculator.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMortality in patients with acute respiratory failure remains high. Predicting progression of acute respiratory failure may be critical to improving patient outcomes. Machine learning, a subset of artificial intelligence is a rapidly expanding area, which is being integrated into several areas of clinical medicine. This manuscript will address the knowledge gap in predicting the onset and progression of respiratory failure, provide a review of existing prognostic strategies, and provide a clinical perspective on the implementation and future integration of machine learning into clinical care. MAIN BODY: Existing strategies for predicting respiratory failure, such as prediction scores and biomarkers, offer both strengths and limitations. While these tools provide some prognostic value, machine learning presents a promising, data-driven approach to prognostication in the intensive care unit. Machine learning has already shown success in various areas of clinical medicine, although relatively few algorithms target respiratory failure prediction specifically. As machine learning grows in the context of respiratory failure, outcomes such as the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and escalation of respiratory support (e.g. non-invasive ventilation) have been identified as key targets. However, the development and implementation of machine learning models in clinical care involves complex challenges. Future success will depend on rigorous model validation, clinician collaboration, thoughtful trial design, and the application of implementation science to ensure integration into clinical care.
conclusionMachine learning holds promise for optimizing treatment strategies and potentially improving outcomes in respiratory failure. However, further research and development are necessary to fully realize its potential in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.