Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40978923›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

The Prognostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Models for Mortality Prediction in Intensive Care Units: A Systematic Review.

Archana Dhami, Kosisochukwu A Onyeukwu, Saba Sattar, Anmol Batra, Yahia Mostafa, Muhammad Haris, Asma Iqbal, Syed Faqeer Hussain Bokhari, Muhammad Uzair Siddique

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
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

9 authors.

Archana DhamiFamily Medicine, Avalon University School of Medicine, Willemstad, CUW.
Kosisochukwu A OnyeukwuGeneral Practice, National Health Service (NHS), Gateshead, GBR.
Saba SattarInternal Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Lahore, PAK.
Anmol BatraInternal Medicine, Ghulam Muhammad Mahar Medical College, Sukkur, PAK.
Yahia MostafaMedicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, EGY.
Muhammad HarisInternal Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Lahore, PAK.
Asma IqbalMedicine and Surgery, King Edward Medical University, Lahore, PAK.
Syed Faqeer Hussain BokhariMedicine and Surgery, King Edward Medical University, Lahore, PAK.
Muhammad Uzair SiddiqueInternal Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Lahore, PAK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In-hospital mortality prediction for patients admitted to the ICU remains a critical challenge in the field of critical care medicine. This systematic review evaluates the application of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) models for predicting in-hospital mortality in ICU settings. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we analyzed 15 studies published between January 2015 and April 2025 that utilized AI and ML approaches for mortality prediction in ICU populations. The most commonly employed algorithms were extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), random forest, and logistic regression, with data predominantly sourced from two major publicly available critical care databases: the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC) and the eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD). Across all studies, AI and ML models consistently outperformed traditional clinical scoring systems such as the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS), demonstrating superior discriminative performance in mortality prediction. Ensemble methods, particularly random forest and XGBoost, generally achieved the highest predictive accuracy, while deep learning approaches such as recurrent neural networks showed particular promise for analyzing temporal trends in physiological data. Key predictive features identified across multiple studies included patient age, vital signs (especially heart rate and blood pressure), laboratory values (particularly markers of renal function), and metrics of neurological status such as level of consciousness. Importantly, several studies developed models that required only routinely collected clinical data available within the first 24 hours of ICU admission, demonstrating the feasibility of early risk stratification using AI and ML. Although most research remains retrospective in nature and confined to a limited number of datasets, the consistent performance advantages observed across diverse modeling approaches underscore the significant clinical potential of AI and ML in ICU mortality prediction. Future research should prioritize the use of standardized model development and reporting methodologies, prospective validation in diverse and real-world clinical settings, exploration of integration and implementation challenges, and rigorous assessments of clinical impact. Such efforts are critical to translating these promising predictive technologies into improved decision-making processes and outcomes for critically ill patients.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceccucritical careicuintensive caremachine learningmortalitymortality prediction

Identifiers

PMID40978923
PMCPMC12445070

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.