Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41107959›Full record

SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2025

Deep learning models for ICU readmission prediction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Emanuele Koumantakis, Konstantina Remoundou, Nicoletta Colombi, Carmen Fava, Ioanna Roussaki, Alessia Visconti, Paola Berchialla

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Emanuele KoumantakisCenter for Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Public Health, Department of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6994-8375
Konstantina RemoundouSchool of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2984-4819
Nicoletta ColombiFederated Library of Medicine F. Rossi, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6870-5590
Carmen FavaDepartment of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4896-981X
Ioanna RoussakiSchool of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7289-0653
Alessia Visconti *Center for Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Public Health, Department of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. alessia.visconti@unito.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4144-2019
Paola Berchialla *Center for Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Public Health, Department of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5835-5638

Funding

European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme (project ENFIELD) 101120657
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntensive Care Unit (ICU) readmissions are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Therefore, determining an appropriate timing of ICU discharge is critical. In this context, deep learning (DL) approaches have attracted significant attention.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of studies developing or validating DL models for ICU readmission prediction, published up to March 4th, 2025, and indexed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. We summarised them along multiple dimensions, including outcome and population definition, DL architecture, reproducibility, generalizability, and explainability, and provided a meta-analytic estimate of model performance.

resultsWe included 24 studies encompassing 49 DL models, predominantly trained on US-based datasets, and rarely subjected to external validation. There was considerable variability across study settings, including the definition and timeframe of the ICU readmission outcome, as well as DL architecture used, alongside a substantial risk of bias. Technical reproducibility and model interpretation were rare. A meta-analysis of AUROC values from 11 studies yielded a mean of 0.78 (95% CI = 0.72–0.84), with very high heterogeneity (I2 = 99.9%). Models targeting disease-specific ICU subpopulations achieved significantly higher performance (mean AUROC = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.89–0.95, p = 0.002), and substantially lower heterogeneity (I2 = 17.1%).

conclusionsDL models showed promising performances in predicting ICU readmissions, but exhibited several shortcomings, including low reproducibility, over-reliance on a few US-based datasets, and limited explainability. Additionally, the high heterogeneity and risk of bias limited our ability to assess their pooled performance through meta-analysis. Taken together, our observations suggest that the quality of the evidence regarding the application of DL approaches to ICU readmission prediction is poor, thus hindering their clinical applicability.

Indexed as

Deep LearningPatient ReadmissionHumansIntensive Care UnitsPrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning ModelsReproducibility of ResultsDeep learningICU readmissionRisk predictionSystematic review.

Identifiers

PMID41107959
PMCPMC12535055

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.