Search

Introduction: Benchmarking intensive care units for audit and feedback is frequently based on comparing actual mortality versus predicted mortality. Traditionally, mortality prediction models rely on a limited number of input variables and significant manual data entry and curation. Using automatically extracted electronic health record data may be a promising alternative. However, adequate data on comparative performance between these approaches is currently lacking., Methods: The AmsterdamUMCdb intensive care database was used to construct a baseline APACHE IV in-hospital mortality model based on data typically available through manual data curation. Subsequently, new in-hospital mortality models were systematically developed and evaluated. New models differed with respect to the extent of automatic variable extraction, classification method, recalibration usage and the size of collection window., Results: A total of 13 models were developed based on data from 5,077 admissions divided into a train (80%) and test (20%) cohort. Adding variables or extending collection windows only marginally improved discrimination and calibration. An XGBoost model using only automatically extracted variables, and therefore no acute or chronic diagnoses, was the best performing automated model with an AUC of 0.89 and a Brier score of 0.10., Discussion: Performance of intensive care mortality prediction models based on manually curated versus automatically extracted electronic health record data is similar. Importantly, our results suggest that variables typically requiring manual curation, such as diagnosis at admission and comorbidities, may not be necessary for accurate mortality prediction. These proof-of-concept results require replication using multi-centre data., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Purpose of Review: This review explores recent key advancements in artificial intelligence for acute and intensive care medicine. As artificial intelligence rapidly evolves, this review aims to elucidate its current applications, future possibilities, and the vital challenges that are associated with its integration into emergency medical dispatch, triage, medical consultation and ICUs., Recent Findings: The integration of artificial intelligence in emergency medical dispatch (EMD) facilitates swift and accurate assessment. In the emergency department (ED), artificial intelligence driven triage models leverage diverse patient data for improved outcome predictions, surpassing human performance in retrospective studies. Artificial intelligence can streamline medical documentation in the ED and enhances medical imaging interpretation. The introduction of large multimodal generative models showcases the future potential to process varied biomedical data for comprehensive decision support. In the ICU, artificial intelligence applications range from early warning systems to treatment suggestions., Summary: Despite promising academic strides, widespread artificial intelligence adoption in acute and critical care is hindered by ethical, legal, technical, organizational, and validation challenges. Despite these obstacles, artificial intelligence's potential to streamline clinical workflows is evident. When these barriers are overcome, future advancements in artificial intelligence have the potential to transform the landscape of patient care for acute and intensive care medicine., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objective: Reinforcement learning (RL) is a machine learning technique uniquely effective at sequential decision-making, which makes it potentially relevant to ICU treatment challenges. We set out to systematically review, assess level-of-readiness and meta-analyze the effect of RL on outcomes for critically ill patients., Data Sources: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase.com, Clarivate Analytics/Web of Science Core Collection, Elsevier/SCOPUS and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore Digital Library from inception to March 25, 2022, with subsequent citation tracking., Data Extraction: Journal articles that used an RL technique in an ICU population and reported on patient health-related outcomes were included for full analysis. Conference papers were included for level-of-readiness assessment only. Descriptive statistics, characteristics of the models, outcome compared with clinician's policy and level-of-readiness were collected. RL-health risk of bias and applicability assessment was performed., Data Synthesis: A total of 1,033 articles were screened, of which 18 journal articles and 18 conference papers, were included. Thirty of those were prototyping or modeling articles and six were validation articles. All articles reported RL algorithms to outperform clinical decision-making by ICU professionals, but only in retrospective data. The modeling techniques for the state-space, action-space, reward function, RL model training, and evaluation varied widely. The risk of bias was high in all articles, mainly due to the evaluation procedure., Conclusion: In this first systematic review on the application of RL in intensive care medicine we found no studies that demonstrated improved patient outcomes from RL-based technologies. All studies reported that RL-agent policies outperformed clinician policies, but such assessments were all based on retrospective off-policy evaluation., Competing Interests: Dr. Dam’s institution received funding from ZonMW/Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (10430012010003); he received funding from Pacmed BV. Dr. Hengst received funding from ING Bank N.V. Dr. Hoogendoorn disclosed co-ownership of PersonalAIze B.V. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)