SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2025
Application progress of machine learning in patient-ventilator asynchrony during mechanical ventilation: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality and performance of machine learning versus logistic regression for predicting IVIG resistance in Kawasaki disease: a PROBAST+AI systematic comparison.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Pooled it
- Physiology-guided mechanical ventilation: Monitoring, proportional assist, and bounded automation.World journal of critical care medicine · 2026Review
- Deep learning for time-series segmentation of mechanical ventilator waveforms.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Mechanical ventilation in ARDS: navigating the fine line with real-time monitoring.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- PVADet: fast patient-ventilator asynchrony detection on waveforms.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Article
- Deep Learning for Time-Series Segmentation of Mechanical Ventilator Waveforms.Research square · 2025Article
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA) is a common and harmful complication during mechanical ventilation, often requiring labor-intensive manual assessment. Machine learning (ML) offers a promising approach for automated and accurate PVA detection and prediction. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the methodologies and performance of ML models applied to PVA.
methodsFollowing a pre-established PROSPERO-registered protocol (CRD42024626163), we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from inception to November 2024. Original studies applying ML techniques to assess PVA in adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation were included. A refined quality assessment method was developed to evaluate methodological and technical features of included studies.
resultsAmong the 74 articles, fourteen were included, employing 11 distinct ML methods to address 19 targeted types of PVA. Thirteen studies focused on PVA identification, while only one predicted its occurrence. ML models demonstrated promising performance for PVA identification, with high F1 scores (ranging from 0.731 to 0.988) and strong results across other robust metrics (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, MCC, AUROC) where reported. However, only two studies conducted external validation. Furthermore, reporting of crucial technical details, such as class imbalance handling (addressed in 5 studies) and hyperparameter tuning (described in 4 studies), was often limited.
conclusionsML models show significant potential for identifying and predicting PVA, as evidenced by their high reported performance metrics. However, their widespread clinical application is currently limited by substantial methodological heterogeneity, variability in PVA definitions and outcome measures, insufficient external validation, and inconsistent reporting of crucial technical details. Future research should prioritize developing generalizable models validated externally in diverse clinical settings, standardizing PVA definitions and outcome measures, and providing detailed methodological reporting to enhance reproducibility and clinical applicability.
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.