Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41943713›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Intensive Care Society2026

Predictive models for ICU patient readmission based on machine learning: A systematic review.

Zhixiang Zheng, Wenjun Yan, Kai Cao, Zhi Zhao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Zhixiang ZhengInfectious Diseases Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Jiangsu, China.
Wenjun YanXuzhou Central Hospital, China.
Kai CaoXuzhou Medical University, China.
Zhi ZhaoInfectious Diseases Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Jiangsu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-5292-9977

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) prediction models can accurately identify high-risk populations by integrating multi-dimensional clinical data, providing decision support for doctors in formulating individualized discharge plans and optimizing follow-up intervention strategies, thereby reducing the risk of readmission from the source. Currently, the number of AI prediction models for readmission of critically ill patients is increasing, but the quality and applicability of these models in clinical practice and future research remain uncertain. Objective: To systematically evaluate published studies on AI prediction models for critically ill patients. Methods: This study conducted a computerized search of the CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Embase databases, with the time range from 2020 to June 25, 2025. Information such as study design, data sources, outcome definitions, sample size, predictors, model development, and performance was extracted from the selected studies. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) checklist was used to evaluate the risk of bias and applicability. Results: A total of 387 studies were retrieved, and after screening, 31 studies with their 31 prediction models were included in this review. All studies developed risk prediction models for readmission of critically ill patients using artificial intelligence algorithms. The readmission risk of critically ill patients ranged from 1.3% to 13.7%. The most commonly used predictors were structured data. The reported area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.66 to 0.98. All studies had a high risk of bias, mainly due to poor reporting quality in the analysis domain and insufficient applicability. The pooled AUC of the 24 validation models was 0.82, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.77-0.87. Conclusion: These study results constitute a comprehensive set of high-quality evidence, demonstrating that AI prediction models exhibit moderate-to-high predictive performance and that their predictive performance is significantly higher than that of traditional prediction models. Patient or public contribution: No Patient or Public Contribution. This Meta-analysis is based on the systematic review and statistical combination of the published clinical research data. The processes of research design, data extraction, and result interpretation did not involve the participation of patients or the public. Registration: The protocol for this study has been registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42025637829).

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecritically ill patientsmeta-analysisreadmissionsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41943713
PMCPMC13050372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.