Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42388443›Full record

ReviewCritical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine2026

A pragmatic risk-stratified framework for using large language models in intensive care medicine: A narrative review.

Nilesh Anand Devanand, Santosh Verghese, Stephen Bacchi, Christopher Bain, Ashwin Subramaniam, Krishnaswamy Sundararajan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care 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.

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

6 authors.

Nilesh Anand DevanandDepartment of Intensive Care, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Port Road, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Santosh VergheseDepartment of Intensive Care, Flinders Medical Centre, Southern Adelaide Local Health Network, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Stephen BacchiDepartment of Neurology, Lyell McEwin Hospital, Haydown Road, Elizabeth Vale, South Australia, Australia.
Christopher BainDepartment of Digital Health, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Australia.
Ashwin SubramaniamDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Monash Health, Dandenong, Victoria, Australia.
Krishnaswamy SundararajanDepartment of Intensive Care, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Port Road, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To provide Australian intensive care clinicians with a pragmatic framework for the safe integration of large language models (LLMs) into intensive care unit (ICU) practise, addressing the current lack of Australian-specific guidance and limited local evidence. Design: Narrative review. Data sources: Peer-reviewed publications, preprints, and policy documents relating to LLM use in health care, with a focus on critical care applications and governance. Review methods: Evidence and expert commentary were synthesised to develop a clinician-led, risk-stratified framework for ICU implementation, with emphasis on safety, oversight, and applicability within Australian health systems. Clinical use cases, risks, governance considerations, and practical safeguards for day-to-day ICU practise were identified. Results: LLMs have potential utility in data-dense ICU environments, including summarising complex clinical information, supporting documentation, assisting clinical reasoning, and facilitating research tasks. However, evidence for LLM performance in ICU contexts remains limited, particularly in Australia. Key risks include inaccurate or fabricated outputs (" Conclusions: LLMs may serve as adjunctive cognitive tools in Australian ICUs when used in clearly defined, low-to intermediate-risk contexts under clinician oversight. Safe integration requires robust governance frameworks emphasising transparency, data protection, and proportionate clinician decision-making. Further Australian-based evaluation is needed before high-risk clinical applications can be considered for routine practise.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceClinical decision supportHealth governanceIntensive care unitLarge language model

Identifiers

PMID42388443
PMCPMC13318555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.