Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41913474›Full record

ArticleKorean journal of anesthesiology2026

Artificial intelligence in intensive care units: a scoping review addressing the translational gap to clinical practice.

Francesco Zarantonello, Alessandro De Cassai, Tommaso Pettenuzzo, Nicolò Sella, Giulia Mormando, Annalisa Bolzon, Giulia Aviani Fulvio, Carlo Alberto Bertoncello, Annalisa Boscolo

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Korean journal of anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

9 authors.

Francesco ZarantonelloInstitute of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Alessandro De CassaiInstitute of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy. alessandro.decassai@unipd.it.
Tommaso PettenuzzoInstitute of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Nicolò SellaInstitute of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Giulia MormandoDepartment of Medicine (DIMED), University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Annalisa BolzonDepartment of Medicine (DIMED), University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Giulia Aviani FulvioDepartment of Medicine (DIMED), University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Carlo Alberto BertoncelloDepartment of Medicine (DIMED), University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Annalisa BoscoloInstitute of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCritically ill patients generate large volumes of complex data, creating challenges for timely clinical decision making in intensive care units (ICUs). Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool for supporting diagnosis, monitoring, prognostication, and workflow optimization in this setting. This scoping review aimed to map current AI applications in critical care and identify practical clinical applications.

methodsA systematic search of the MEDLINE, Scopus, and EMBASE databases was conducted for studies published between January 2015 and June 2025. Eligible studies evaluated practical AI applications in ICU settings involving patients, relatives, or healthcare professionals. Data pertaining to study design, AI techniques, clinical domains, outcomes, model characteristics, and implementation features were extracted.

resultsIn total, 112 studies were included. Most were retrospective observational studies (59.8%) focusing on adult populations. Machine learning was the predominant technology used (76.8%), and the main clinical applications were outcome and mortality predictions, early warning systems, and monitoring, particularly in neurological and respiratory domains. Notably, 24.1% of included studies relied on North American public databases, raising concerns about geographic data monoculture, and only 27.7% of the systems provided real-time bedside applications. Most systems remained at the experimental stage, with limited real-world implementation, heterogeneous performance reporting, and a frequent lack of external validation.

conclusionsAI applications in ICUs have expanded rapidly and show substantial promise for improving patient care and workflow efficiency. Future research should prioritize prospective multicenter validation, explainability, and implementation science to ensure the safe and effective integration of AI into critical care.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCritical CareIntensive Care UnitsTranslational Research, BiomedicalClinical Decision-MakingCritical IllnessHumansArtificial intelligenceClinical decision support systemsCritical illnessElectronic health recordsIntensive care unitsMachine learningPatient safety

Identifiers

PMID41913474
PMCPMC13244170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.