Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40537867›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2025

Can we predict the future of respiratory failure prediction?

Alex K Pearce, Shamim Nemati, Ewan C Goligher, Catherine L Hough, Andre L Holder, Gabriel Wardi, Philip Yang, Aaron Boussina, Patrick G Lyons, Sarina Sahetya and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors.

Alex K PearceDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep Medicine, and Physiology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. apearce@health.ucsd.edu.
Shamim NematiDepartment of Biomedical informatics, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Ewan C GoligherInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Catherine L HoughDepartment of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Andre L HolderDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Gabriel WardiDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep Medicine, and Physiology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Philip YangDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Aaron BoussinaDepartment of Biomedical informatics, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Patrick G LyonsDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Sarina SahetyaDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Atul MalhotraDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep Medicine, and Physiology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Angela RogersDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

San Diego Biomedical Informatics Education & Research (SABER)T15LM011271 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI SHAMIM NEMATI · 2012 to 2026
$9.7M
Characterizing patients at risk for sepsis through Big Data (Supplement)K23GM137182 · NIGMS · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI HOLDER, ANDRE L · 2020 to 2023
$907k
NIGMS NIH HHS K23 GM137182NLM NIH HHS T15 LM011271
6 · The paper itself

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

Respiratory InsufficiencyForecastingHumansIntensive Care UnitsMachine LearningPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisRespiration, ArtificialAcute respiratory failureArtificial intelligenceDeep learningInvasive mechanical ventilationMachine learningRespiratory failure

Identifiers

PMID40537867
PMCPMC12180172

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.