ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Predicting failure of extubation and non-invasive respiratory support in critically ill patients: clinical complexity, limitations of traditional indices, and machine learning perspectives.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Failure of non-invasive respiratory support represents a major and unresolved clinical challenge in critically ill patients, both after extubation and during non-invasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen therapy used as primary treatment. Delayed or inappropriate escalation to invasive mechanical ventilation is associated with adverse outcomes, underscoring the need for reliable tools to timely identify patients at risk of failure. Traditional bedside indices provide simplicity and immediate applicability but show limited predictive accuracy and poor generalizability across heterogeneous clinical settings. In recent years, predictive models based on machine learning have been developed to improve risk stratification by integrating multiple clinical and physiological variables. Although early models demonstrated improved discrimination compared with conventional indices, their clinical impact has been constrained by retrospective designs, heterogeneous outcome definitions, limited external validation, and poor interpretability-limitations that collectively prevent meaningful cross-study comparisons and hinder safe clinical translation. More recent approaches have shifted toward dynamic and time-dependent models that incorporate early physiological trajectories and treatment response, offering predictions that are more consistent with real-world clinical decision-making processes. Nevertheless, high predictive accuracy alone does not ensure clinical usefulness in the absence of transparent decision support and integration into clinical workflows. Overall, current evidence suggests that predictive models should not replace clinical judgment but rather support timely, contextualized decisions by identifying modifiable risks. Future research should prioritize standardized outcome definitions, prospective multicenter validation, and the development of interpretable, workflow-integrated tools to enable safe and effective clinical translation.
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.