ArticleCritical care explorations2026
rECMOmender: Reinforcement Learning for Decision Support in Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Management.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextManagement of ventilator and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) settings in critically ill adults requires individualized decisions to balance oxygenation, ventilation, and complication risks. Existing approaches rely heavily on clinician experience, with limited decision support tools available. HYPOTHESIS: An offline reinforcement learning agent trained on real-world venovenous ECMO clinical data can generate safe, interpretable, and clinically aligned recommendations for ECMO and ventilator management, including support for earlier and more efficient weaning. METHODS AND MODELS: We conducted a retrospective study using electronic health record data from 184 adult patients who underwent venovenous ECMO at a tertiary care center. rECMOmender was developed using conservative Q-learning with a physiologically informed reward structure. Multiple model variants were compared across discrete and continuous action spaces and two reward formulations. Performance was assessed using fitted Q evaluation, comparison of action distributions, and alignment with clinician practice.
resultsrECMOmender generated stable, interpretable recommendations across five key parameters: Fio2, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), respiratory rate, sweep gas flow, and blood flow rate. It selected Fio2 values in the 40-50% range most frequently (46.75% vs. 45.65% for clinicians) and favored PEEP of 9-11 cm H2O (43.94% vs. 34.28%), while using high PEEP settings (13-20 cm H2O) 73.43% less often. Compared with clinicians, rECMOmender increased large parameter shifts (> 1 bin) by 72.53% for Fio2, 348.15% for PEEP, 299.21% for respiratory rate, 96.68% for sweep gas, and 34.16% for blood flow, resulting in an overall 120.37% increase in major adjustments (3105 vs. 1409). INTERPRETATIONS AND
conclusionsrECMOmender demonstrated dynamic but safety conscious adjustments that aligned with clinical patterns, indicating potential as a decision support tool that complements clinician judgment.
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.