Observational studyCritical care explorations2026
Physician Gestalt Compared With Artificial Intelligence Model to Predict Intubation in Critically Ill Patients.
Observational study 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceAccurate prediction of intubation in critically ill patients could enable interventions that improve patient outcomes. However, the performance of intensive care physicians compared with machine learning (ML) models remains unknown.
objectivesTo investigate intensive care physicians' ability to predict the need for intubation within 24 hours and compare their performance against an established ML model, Vent.io. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsThis prospective observational study in two ICUs surveyed intensivists to test their ability to predict the need for intubation of adult patients under their care. Physician predictions of intubation were then compared with predictions from Vent.io. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary metrics include prediction sensitivity, specificity, and descriptive statistics for both physicians and ML model. Generalized linear mixed models investigated the fixed effect of the predictor (physician vs. Vent.io) on both sensitivity and specificity while accounting for the random effects from different physicians. Similar modeling was used to investigate the relationship between physician confidence and correctness.
resultsOverall, physicians were quite confident in their predictions of intubation with a median score of 8 (on a 0-10 point scale, with 0 being not at all confident and 10 being extremely confident) out of the 302 surveys administered. Sensitivity was 0.190 and 0.714 for physicians and Vent.io, respectively. Specificity was 0.960 and 0.673 for physicians and Vent.io, respectively. Generalized linear mixed modeling showed that physician confidence was associated with greater odds of correctly predicting intubation outcome (odds ratio [OR] 1.49; 95% CI, 1.22-1.84; p < 0.001). Vent.io had significantly greater odds of being correct when patients required intubation compared with physicians (OR 18.68; 95% CI, 1.87-186.31; p = 0.013). However, intensive care physicians outperformed Vent.io at correctly predicting when patients did not require intubation (OR 24.80; 95% CI, 13.22-46.52; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although predictive performance compared with human experts is promising, Vent.io needs real-time testing in a randomized clinical trial to determine if its deployment can improve clinical outcomes.
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.