ArticleCritical care explorations2026
Prediction of Adverse Events in Single Ventricle Physiology Infants Using Artificial Intelligence Tools.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdverse events (AEs) within the cardiac ICU (CICU) are associated with high mortality and comorbidity. Patients with single ventricle (SV) physiology are particularly vulnerable to experiencing such events before second stage surgery (bidirectional Glenn). Timely identification and management of AEs are critical for improving patient outcomes and enabling earlier, more targeted medical interventions in this vulnerable population.
objectivesTo develop and evaluate machine learning (ML) models using continuous physiologic data to predict and identify AEs including cardiac arrest (CA), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) cannulation, and endotracheal intubation, up to 8 hours before occurrence in SV infants. DERIVATION COHORT: Retrospective cohort of 158 SV patients (324 admissions) admitted to the tertiary care CICU at Children's National Hospital. VALIDATION COHORT: Internal validation occurred in the held-out testing group of the data (10% of the total dataset). PREDICTION MODEL: Supervised ML classifiers were (e.g., decision tree, logistic regression, support vector machine, extreme gradient boosting, random forest [RF]) trained and compared across four observation windows (8, 4, 2, and 1 hr) preceding each event. Model Performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Fifteen physiologic and laboratory variables were extracted, of which six high-quality variables were included in the ML model. AEs were categorized into four categories (e.g., intubation, CA, ECMO, no event) for multiclass classification and ECMO-CA were also combined into a single class (ECMO-CA) to improve stability for rare events.
resultsA total of 256 AEs were analyzed: 157 intubations (61.328%), 42 ECMO events (16.406%), 44 CAs (17.187%), and 13 extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation events (5.078%). Across all time windows, the RF model achieved the best performance on the held-out test set for AE detection (AUROCs 0.998 at 8 hr, 0.996 at 4 hr, 0.996 at 2 hr, and 0.997 at 1 hr). For the combined-class multiclass classification RF model at 1-hour observation window, the held-out test set results showed AUROCs of 0.819 for intubation, 0.804 for ECMO-CA, and 0.840 for no-event prediction.
conclusionsA ML model can predict and discriminate between several types of AEs in SV infants before bidirectional Glenn. Accurate predictions may help perform timely interventions, potentially reducing morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs.
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.