Gary E Weissman1,2,3, Vincent X Liu4,5. 1. Palliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center. 2. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine. 3. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Kaiser Permanente Division of Research. 5. The Permanente Medical Group, Oakland, California, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients, surrogate decision makers, and clinicians face weighty and urgent decisions under uncertainty in the ICU, which could be aided by risk prediction. Although emerging artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) algorithms could reduce uncertainty surrounding these life and death decisions, certain criteria must be met to ensure their bedside value. RECENT FINDINGS: Although ICU severity of illness scores have existed for decades, these tools have not been shown to predict well or to improve outcomes for individual patients. Novel AI/ML tools offer the promise of personalized ICU care but remain untested in clinical trials. Ensuring that these predictive models account for heterogeneity in patient characteristics and treatments, are not only specific to a clinical action but also consider the longitudinal course of critical illness, and address patient-centered outcomes related to equity, transparency, and shared decision-making will increase the likelihood that these tools improve outcomes. Improved clarity around standards and contributions from institutions and critical care departments will be essential. SUMMARY: Improved ICU prognostication, enabled by advanced ML/AI methods, offer a promising approach to inform difficult and urgent decisions under uncertainty. However, critical knowledge gaps around performance, equity, safety, and effectiveness must be filled and prospective, randomized testing of predictive interventions are still needed.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients, surrogate decision makers, and clinicians face weighty and urgent decisions under uncertainty in the ICU, which could be aided by risk prediction. Although emerging artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) algorithms could reduce uncertainty surrounding these life and death decisions, certain criteria must be met to ensure their bedside value. RECENT FINDINGS: Although ICU severity of illness scores have existed for decades, these tools have not been shown to predict well or to improve outcomes for individual patients. Novel AI/ML tools offer the promise of personalized ICU care but remain untested in clinical trials. Ensuring that these predictive models account for heterogeneity in patient characteristics and treatments, are not only specific to a clinical action but also consider the longitudinal course of critical illness, and address patient-centered outcomes related to equity, transparency, and shared decision-making will increase the likelihood that these tools improve outcomes. Improved clarity around standards and contributions from institutions and critical care departments will be essential. SUMMARY: Improved ICU prognostication, enabled by advanced ML/AI methods, offer a promising approach to inform difficult and urgent decisions under uncertainty. However, critical knowledge gaps around performance, equity, safety, and effectiveness must be filled and prospective, randomized testing of predictive interventions are still needed.
Authors: Mervyn Singer; Clifford S Deutschman; Christopher Warren Seymour; Manu Shankar-Hari; Djillali Annane; Michael Bauer; Rinaldo Bellomo; Gordon R Bernard; Jean-Daniel Chiche; Craig M Coopersmith; Richard S Hotchkiss; Mitchell M Levy; John C Marshall; Greg S Martin; Steven M Opal; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Tom van der Poll; Jean-Louis Vincent; Derek C Angus Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Theodore J Iwashyna; Carol L Hodgson; David Pilcher; Michael Bailey; Allison van Lint; Shaila Chavan; Rinaldo Bellomo Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: John P Reilly; Nuala J Meyer; Michael Gs Shashaty; Brian J Anderson; Caroline Ittner; Thomas G Dunn; Brian Lim; Caitlin Forker; Michael P Bonk; Ethan Kotloff; Rui Feng; Edward Cantu; Nilam S Mangalmurti; Carolyn S Calfee; Michael A Matthay; Carmen Mikacenic; Keith R Walley; James Russell; David C Christiani; Mark M Wurfel; Paul N Lanken; Muredach P Reilly; Jason D Christie Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Gary E Weissman; Kuldeep N Yadav; Trishya Srinivasan; Stephanie Szymanski; Florylene Capulong; Vanessa Madden; Katherine R Courtright; Joanna L Hart; David A Asch; Sarah J Ratcliffe; Marilyn M Schapira; Scott D Halpern Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Kimberley M DeMerle; Derek C Angus; J Kenneth Baillie; Emily Brant; Carolyn S Calfee; Joseph Carcillo; Chung-Chou H Chang; Robert Dickson; Idris Evans; Anthony C Gordon; Jason Kennedy; Julian C Knight; Christopher J Lindsell; Vincent Liu; John C Marshall; Adrienne G Randolph; Brendon P Scicluna; Manu Shankar-Hari; Nathan I Shapiro; Timothy E Sweeney; Victor B Talisa; Benjamin Tang; B Taylor Thompson; Ephraim L Tsalik; Tom van der Poll; Lonneke A van Vught; Hector R Wong; Sachin Yende; Huiying Zhao; Christopher W Seymour Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2021-05-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Lieuwe D J Bos; Antonio Artigas; Jean-Michel Constantin; Laura A Hagens; Nanon Heijnen; John G Laffey; Nuala Meyer; Laurent Papazian; Lara Pisani; Marcus J Schultz; Manu Shankar-Hari; Marry R Smit; Charlotte Summers; Lorraine B Ware; Raffaele Scala; Carolyn S Calfee Journal: Eur Respir Rev Date: 2021-02-02