ReviewIntensive care medicine experimental2026
Machine learning models predicting extubation success in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Intensive care medicine experimental, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptimal timing of extubation in mechanically ventilated patients remains a major challenge in intensive care. Machine learning (ML) models have been increasingly proposed to support clinical decision-making, yet their predictive performance and readiness for clinical application in extubation outcomes remain uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the predictive performance and clinical readiness of ML models for predicting extubation success.
methodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL up to November 5, 2024. Studies including mechanically ventilated critically ill adult patients undergoing planned extubation were eligible. The index test was any ML model predicting extubation outcome. Models reporting an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were meta-analyzed, and subgroup analyses were conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative (QUADAS-C) tool, adapted for ML-based prediction studies.
resultsTwenty-six studies were included in the systematic review, and 47 ML models from 14 studies (n = 34,322 patients) were eligible for meta-analysis. Reported AUC values across predictive models ranged from 0.59 to 0.98. Pooled AUCs by model type were 0.88 (95% CI: 0.78-0.94) for classical ML models and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.68-0.94) for deep learning models. The best-performing ML models of each study had a pooled AUC of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.82-0.95). Pooled estimates were derived from internally validated models, as only two studies reported externally validated AUCs with confidence intervals. Study heterogeneity was high, driven by substantial differences in predictor selection and model design.
conclusionMachine learning models demonstrate acceptable discriminatory performance for predicting extubation success. However, limited external and prospective validation, substantial heterogeneity, and inconsistent reporting currently preclude their routine clinical implementation.
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.