ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Machine learning and artificial intelligence for delirium prediction with Electronic Health Records (EHR): a scoping review.
Article 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. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDelirium, an acute and fluctuating neurocognitive disorder prevalent among hospitalized and geriatric surgical patients, remains a pervasive yet underrecognized clinical challenge. Leveraging Electronic Health Records (EHRs), Machine Learning (ML) models have emerged as promising tools for early prediction and intervention. This scoping review synthesizes the existing literature, identifies current research gaps, and outlines future directions to advance delirium prediction modeling.
methodsFollowing the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, literature from 2020 to 2025 was systematically searched across Google Scholar, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science using a comprehensive query strategy.
resultsThe review highlights a significant reliance on structured preoperative and intraoperative EHR for delirium prediction, despite the existence of abundant and highly informative unstructured clinical narratives. Furthermore, a substantial heterogeneity exists in the utilized delirium identification methodologies (e.g. Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC), Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOSS), International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria, 4AT delirium detection, Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC), Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium (CAPD) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th version (DSM-5), natural language processing (NLP) based analysis), alongside a focus on specific surgical subgroups. This limited data utilization and methodological variation pose challenges to ML model generalizability and robustness. The literature also showed a research emphasis on critically ill patients, potentially overlooking subtle delirium in low-severity cases.
conclusionsFuture research should focus on early risk stratification and prioritize four key areas: (1) expanded utilization of both tabular EHR and unstructured clinical notes; (2) development of integrated multimodal fusion models adaptable to dynamic patient states; (3) investigation of the temporal dynamics of delirium development using time-series analysis; and (4) application of causal inference methods to elucidate the relationships between risk factors and delirium. Superior prediction performance can be achieved by leveraging cutting-edge architectures (e.g. transformers) and parallel computing efficiencies to move beyond traditional machine learning. To enhance real-world adoption, future work should integrate Explainable AI tools such as Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) within EHR-based decision support systems, improving interpretability and mitigating subgroup disparities in localized risk assessment.
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.