ArticleCritical care explorations2026
Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Critical Deterioration in the PICU.
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
backgroundExisting PICU early warning systems lack sufficient accuracy and timeliness for effective preparation. Machine learning approaches may improve prediction of critical deterioration events (CDEs), but their operational utility relative to existing tools remains unclear.
objectivesTo develop a machine learning model for early detection of CDEs and evaluate operational utility against existing tools using a novel alert burden analysis. DERIVATION COHORT: PICU admissions (ages 0-24 yr, stay ≥ 24 hr) at a quaternary children's hospital from 2014 to 2020 (n = 12,771 patients; 21,141 admissions). CDEs (6% of patients) included cardiopulmonary resuscitation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation initiation, dilute epinephrine administration, or unplanned intubation. VALIDATION COHORT: Temporally distinct PICU admissions from 2021 to 2022 (n = 5144 patients; 6929 admissions; 6% CDE rate). PREDICTION MODEL: An ensemble of extreme gradient-boosted models (PICU Warning INdex [P-WIN]) trained to predict CDEs at 1-12-hour horizons using 550 features derived from demographics, medications, laboratory results, and vital signs.
resultsP-WIN demonstrated excellent discrimination at 2-hour (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC], 0.95 [95% CI, 0.94-0.96] and area under the precision-recall curve [AUPRC], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.72-0.80]) and 12-hour horizons (AUROC, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.92-0.94] and AUPRC, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.64-0.72]). To alert before 80% of events, P-WIN generated 0.20 alerts per patient-day at a median 10.17 hours before CDE. Compared with the existing rule-based PICU Warning Tool (alerting before 38% of events), P-WIN generated one-third the alert burden at equivalent sensitivity (0.03 vs. 0.10 alerts per patient-day).
conclusionsP-WIN accurately predicted PICU CDEs up to 12 hours in advance with low alert burden, providing a viable opportunity for shifting care from reactive rescue to proactive, resource-intensive preparation and prevention.
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.