Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41043137›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025

Opportunities and Challenges of Using Artificial Intelligence in Predicting Clinical Outcomes and Length of Stay in Neonatal Intensive Care Units: Systematic Review.

Samantha Tudor, Risha Bhatia, Michael Liem, Tafheem Ahmad Wani, James Boyd, Urooj Raza Khan

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

6 authors.

Samantha TudorLa Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0009-0009-4681-0977
Risha BhatiaMonash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9335-0402
Michael LiemLa Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0568-3942
Tafheem Ahmad WaniLa Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9884-0563
James BoydLa Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8925-8811
Urooj Raza KhanLa Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5910-0004

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care has been steadily increasing for over 2 decades. Integrating AI into neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) has promise as it has the potential to reshape neonatal care and improve outcomes. However, challenges such as data quality, clinical interpretation, and ethical considerations may hinder AI's practical implementation in NICUs.

objectiveThis study aims (1) to analyze the current AI research landscape for predicting clinical outcomes and length of stay in the NICU and (2) to explore the benefits and challenges of using AI in the NICU for these predictions.

methodsA systematic review was conducted across 6 databases-PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Informit, and La Trobe Library-to identify English-language peer-reviewed articles published between January 2017 and March 2023 that focused on the use of AI for predicting length of stay and clinical outcomes for NICU patients. Eligibility criteria excluded studies outside the NICU context or lacking predictive focus. Both prospective and retrospective designs were included. A thematic analysis of AI applications in NICUs from the articles identified was conducted.

resultsA total of 24 studies were included in the review, comprising 15 retrospective and 9 prospective designs. These studies primarily originated from the United States (13 studies), with others from Austria, Taiwan, and other countries. The studies evaluated AI applications in NICU settings to predict comorbidities (18/24), mortality (4/24), and length of stay (2/24). Sixteen studies were in the exploration stage, lacking cohesive AI strategies, while 8 demonstrated systematic exploration but no fully integrated solutions. The synthesis of results identified key applications of AI in NICU care, including data-driven insights and predictive models, advancements in medical imaging, improved risk stratification, and personalized neonatal care. AI showed promise in enhancing diagnostic accuracy and care planning, but significant challenges persist, such as data quality, model generalization, and ethical concerns. No studies reported a fully integrated AI ecosystem, highlighting the need for further research to bridge gaps and realize AI's transformative potential in neonatal care.

conclusionsThis review highlights the potential of AI in improving NICU care, particularly through predictive models, medical imaging, and personalized interventions. However, the evidence is limited by significant methodological variability, small sample sizes, risk of bias, and a lack of external validation in included studies. Many studies remain in exploratory phases without cohesive AI strategies or integration into clinical practice, limiting the practical applicability of findings. These results underscore the importance of addressing challenges such as data quality, model generalization, and ethical considerations to fully realize AI's potential in neonatal care. Future research should focus on robust validation, comprehensive implementation strategies, and ethical frameworks to ensure AI's effective and responsible integration into NICU settings.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceIntensive Care Units, NeonatalLength of StayHumansInfant, Newbornartificial intelligenceclinical outcomesdeep learninglength of staymachine learningneonatal intensive care unitNICUpredictive modelingsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41043137
PMCPMC12534773

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.