SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Explainable AI for critical care: a systematic review of interpretable models for sepsis and ICU mortality prediction.
Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smart Cardiac ICU: Digital Integration, Predictive Analytics, and Perioperative Inflammation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Translational Potential and Explainability of Artificial Intelligence-Based Clinical Decision Support for Adults in Intensive Care: A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- Optimization of glucocorticoid administration in patients with sepsis using reinforcement learning: a multicenter retrospective study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted phenotyping of sepsis: Research progress, clinical challenges, and translational prospects.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose
backgroundSepsis is a leading cause of mortality in intensive care units (ICUs), and its rapid progression poses significant challenges for early detection. Traditional scoring systems, such as SOFA and APACHE II, provide clinical benchmarks but often fail to capture subtle early signs of deterioration. Machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models have demonstrated strong predictive performance; however, their “black-box” nature limits transparency, clinician trust, and adoption in real-world ICU settings. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) clarifies how predictions are derived. METHODOLOGY: This systematic review examines studies published between 2020 and 2025 that applied XAI methods, including SHAP, LIME, Grad-CAM, and sensitivity analysis, to predict sepsis onset and ICU mortality. We analyzed the datasets used (e.g., MIMIC-III/IV, Emory University Hospital, Ruijin Hospital), model architectures, interpretability strategies, and the clinical features most strongly associated with predictions.
resultsFindings indicate that XAI-enhanced models not only maintain high predictive accuracy but also highlight clinically meaningful indicators such as respiratory rate, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), urine output, and the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), thereby improving clinician confidence and facilitating adoption.
conclusionDespite these advances, challenges remain, including limited prospective evaluation, inconsistent interpretability metrics, and variable integration into clinical workflows. We conclude by recommending future research priorities, including real-world validation, user-centered design, and multimodal data integration, to ensure that XAI can reliably support timely and informed decision-making in critical care environments.
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.