Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40629428›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2025

Implementing Artificial Intelligence in Critical Care Medicine: a consensus of 22.

Maurizio Cecconi, Massimiliano Greco, Benjamin Shickel, Derek C Angus, Heatherlee Bailey, Elena Bignami, Thierry Calandra, Leo Anthony Celi, Sharon Einav, Paul Elbers and 12 more

Abstract readConsensus StatementReview
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 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Technology integration in intensive care medicine through clinical engineering and convergent biotechnology.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. From Intensive Care Unit Prediction to Intensive Care Unit Accountability: A Global Readiness Passport for Machine-learning Prognostication.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2026
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Artificial intelligence in emergency medicine critical care.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

22 authors.

Maurizio CecconiHumanitas University, Milan, Italy. maurizio.cecconi@humanitas.it.
Massimiliano GrecoHumanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Benjamin ShickelIntelligent Clinical Care Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Derek C AngusDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, USA.
Heatherlee BaileyDurham VA Medical Center, Durham, USA.
Elena BignamiUniversity of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Thierry CalandraCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Leo Anthony CeliLaboratory for Computational Physiology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Sharon EinavFaculty of Medicine, Maccabi Healthcare System and Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel.
Paul ElbersDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ari ErcoleUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Hernando GómezDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, USA.
Michelle Ng GongDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Medicine. Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.
Matthieu KomorowskiImperial College London, London, UK.
Vincent LiuKaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, USA.
Soojin ParkDepartments of Neurology and Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Aarti SarwalWake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, USA.
Christopher W SeymourDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, USA.
Fernando G ZampieriDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada.
Fabio Silvio TacconeErasme University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium.
Jean-Louis VincentErasme University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium.
Azra BihoracIntelligent Clinical Care Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the landscape of critical care, offering opportunities for enhanced diagnostic precision and personalized patient management. However, its integration into ICU clinical practice presents significant challenges related to equity, transparency, and the patient-clinician relationship. To address these concerns, a multidisciplinary team of experts was established to assess the current state and future trajectory of AI in critical care. This consensus identified key challenges and proposed actionable recommendations to guide AI implementation in this high-stakes field. Here we present a call to action for the critical care community, to bridge the gap between AI advancements and the need for humanized, patient-centred care. Our goal is to ensure a smooth transition to personalized medicine while, (1) maintaining equitable and unbiased decision-making, (2) fostering the development of a collaborative research network across ICUs, emergency departments, and operating rooms to promote data sharing and harmonization, and (3) addressing the necessary educational and regulatory shifts required for responsible AI deployment. AI integration into critical care demands coordinated efforts among clinicians, patients, industry leaders, and regulators to ensure patient safety and maximize societal benefit. The recommendations outlined here provide a foundation for the ethical and effective implementation of AI in critical care medicine.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCritical CareHumansIntensive Care UnitsArtificial intelligenceCritical care medicineEthicsHealthcare innovationPersonalized medicine

Identifiers

PMID40629428
PMCPMC12239397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.