Department of Adult Intensive Care, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Room Ne-413, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
SAS Institute, Health Care Analytics, Huizen, The Netherlands.
Intensive Care Med. 2021 Jul;47(7):750-760. doi: 10.1007/s00134-021-06446-7. Epub 2021 Jun 5.
Due to the increasing demand for intensive care unit (ICU) treatment, and to improve quality and efficiency of care, there is a need for adequate and efficient clinical decision-making. The advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has resulted in the development of prediction models, which might aid clinical decision-making. This systematic review seeks to give a contemporary overview of the current maturity of AI in the ICU, the research methods behind these studies, and the risk of bias in these studies.
A systematic search was conducted in Embase, Medline, Web of Science Core Collection and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases to identify eligible studies. Studies using AI to analyze ICU data were considered eligible. Specifically, the study design, study aim, dataset size, level of validation, level of readiness, and the outcomes of clinical trials were extracted. Risk of bias in individual studies was evaluated by the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).
Out of 6455 studies identified through literature search, 494 were included. The most common study design was retrospective [476 studies (96.4% of all studies)] followed by prospective observational [8 (1.6%)] and clinical [10 (2%)] trials. 378 (80.9%) retrospective studies were classified as high risk of bias. No studies were identified that reported on the outcome evaluation of an AI model integrated in routine clinical practice.
The vast majority of developed ICU-AI models remain within the testing and prototyping environment; only a handful were actually evaluated in clinical practice. A uniform and structured approach can support the development, safe delivery, and implementation of AI to determine clinical benefit in the ICU.
由于对重症监护病房(ICU)治疗的需求不断增加,为了提高护理质量和效率,需要进行充分有效的临床决策。人工智能(AI)技术的进步催生了预测模型的发展,这可能有助于临床决策。本系统评价旨在提供当前 ICU 中 AI 的最新成熟度、这些研究背后的研究方法以及这些研究中的偏倚风险的综合概述。
在 Embase、Medline、Web of Science 核心合集和 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册数据库中进行了系统搜索,以确定合格的研究。使用 AI 分析 ICU 数据的研究被认为是合格的。具体来说,提取了研究设计、研究目的、数据集大小、验证水平、准备就绪水平以及临床试验的结果。通过预测模型风险偏倚评估工具(PROBAST)评估个别研究的偏倚风险。
通过文献搜索共确定了 6455 项研究,其中 494 项被纳入。最常见的研究设计是回顾性[476 项研究(所有研究的 96.4%)],其次是前瞻性观察性[8 项(1.6%)]和临床[10 项(2%)]试验。378 项(80.9%)回顾性研究被归类为高偏倚风险。没有发现报告将 AI 模型集成到常规临床实践中的结果评估的研究。
绝大多数开发的 ICU-AI 模型仍处于测试和原型设计环境中;只有少数模型实际上在临床实践中进行了评估。统一和结构化的方法可以支持 AI 的开发、安全交付和实施,以确定 ICU 中的临床获益。