人工智能在急危重症护理中的应用进展
Progress in the Application of Artificial Intelligence in Critical Care Nursing
摘要: 急危重症医学领域正面临临床数据海量增长与医护人员认知负荷过重的双重挑战。人工智能技术的快速发展为破解这一困境提供了新的解决范式。本文系统综述了人工智能在急危重症护理中的最新应用进展,基于持续生命体征监测的早期预警系统、脓毒症全周期智能管理以及机械通气智能决策支持。研究表明,机器学习模型能够整合电子病历、连续生理波形及实验室数据,在预测临床恶化、脓毒症、心脏骤停等不良事件方面显著优于传统评分系统,且可实现数小时至数十小时的提前预警。可穿戴设备与人工智能的结合进一步拓展了监测边界,实现了从重症监护室到普通病房的全院覆盖。在脓毒症管理方面,人工智能不仅支持早期识别,还延伸至亚型分类、并发症预测及预后评估,为个体化治疗提供依据。机械通气领域的应用则聚焦于需求预测、脱机评估及实时决策辅助,旨在优化通气策略并减轻医护负担。
Abstract: The field of critical care medicine is confronting dual challenges posed by the exponential growth of clinical data and the substantial cognitive burden on healthcare professionals. The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technology offers a novel paradigm to address this predicament. This review systematically summarizes the latest progress in AI applications within critical care nursing, early warning systems based on continuous vital signs monitoring, full-cycle intelligent management of sepsis, and intelligent decision support for mechanical ventilation. Current evidence demonstrates that machine learning models, by integrating electronic health records, continuous physiological waveforms, and laboratory data, significantly outperform conventional scoring systems in predicting adverse events such as clinical deterioration, sepsis, and cardiac arrest, with the capability of providing early warnings hours to tens of hours in advance. The integration of wearable devices with AI further extends monitoring boundaries, enabling hospital-wide coverage from intensive care units to general wards. Regarding sepsis management, AI applications have expanded beyond early recognition to encompass phenotyping classification, complication prediction, and prognostic assessment, thereby furnishing evidence for individualized therapeutic strategies. In the domain of mechanical ventilation, AI focuses on demand prediction, weaning evaluation, and real-time decision assistance, aiming to optimize ventilation protocols and alleviate clinical workload.
文章引用:李冰雁. 人工智能在急危重症护理中的应用进展[J]. 临床个性化医学, 2026, 5(2): 114-121. https://doi.org/10.12677/jcpm.2026.52108

1. 引言

急危重症医学领域,包括急诊科和重症监护室,是医疗体系中处理最复杂、病情变化最迅速患者的核心阵地。传统上,临床决策高度依赖医护人员的经验和对海量、多源、动态数据的解读,这既构成巨大的认知负担,也易导致关键信息的遗漏或干预延迟。近年来,人工智能技术的飞速发展,特别是机器学习和深度学习,为破解这一困境提供了全新范式。人工智能在急危重症中的应用已超越早期简单的预测模型构建,正朝着集成化、实时化、可解释的临床决策支持系统演进[1]。这一范式转变的核心在于,AI不仅能够从电子病历、连续生命体征波形、实验室数据中挖掘出人眼难以识别的早期恶化模式,还能将预测结果与具体的临床行动建议相结合,辅助医生进行更精准、更及时地风险分层和干预[2]

早期研究多集中于利用逻辑回归等传统统计方法构建风险评分。随着数据可及性的提升和算法进步,基于梯度提升树、随机森林、深度神经网络等更复杂机器学习算法的模型展现出更优越的预测性能[3]。这些模型能够处理非线性关系和变量间的复杂交互,在预测ICU转科、死亡、脓毒症、心脏骤停等不良事件上,其准确性普遍超越了传统的早期预警评分[3] [4]。当前的研究前沿进一步聚焦于几个关键方向:开发基于连续、实时数据的动态预警系统;构建覆盖疾病全周期(从早期识别、并发症预测到预后评估)的AI解决方案;以及将AI深度嵌入特定治疗场景(如机械通气管理)以提供闭环或半闭环的决策支持[5] [6]。本综述将系统阐述AI在持续生命体征监测与早期预警、脓毒症和心脏骤停的风险预测以及机械通气智能管理等核心场景的最新应用进展,并探讨其向临床实践转化所面临的挑战与未来方向。

2. 基于人工智能的持续生命体征监测与临床恶化早期预警系统

传统基于病房的间断性生命体征测量和早期预警评分系统,存在监测盲区大、预警滞后、警报疲劳等显著局限性。人工智能,特别是结合连续无创监测技术,正在重塑临床恶化预警模式,致力于实现从“间断快照”到“连续动态电影”的监测转变。

这一转变的核心是利用机器学习模型对高分辨率、多参数的生理信号进行实时分析,捕捉临床恶化前的细微、亚临床变化。研究显示,仅凭年龄、心率和呼吸率这三项易于连续获取的参数,通过梯度提升机构建的简化模型(eCART Lite),在预测ICU转科或死亡方面,其性能即可媲美甚至超越需要更多输入变量的传统评分系统[7]。这为在资源有限或系统集成度不高的场景下部署低成本预警工具提供了可能。更先进的系统则整合了更丰富的输入。有研究开发了“循环衰竭早期预警系统”,通过分析来自多器官系统的测量数据,能够提前2小时以上预测90%的循环衰竭事件,且误报警率极低[8]。另一项研究提出的动态早期预警系统,通过构建随时间更新的机器学习模型,能够连续评估血流动力学不稳定的风险,并在干预前数小时至数十小时发出预警[9]

无线可穿戴传感器的普及进一步拓展了连续监测的应用边界,从ICU延伸至普通病房。这些设备可持续采集心率、呼吸率、血氧饱和度等关键指标,而AI负责管理传感器数据,过滤噪音,识别有意义的恶化模式,从而避免信息过载和警报疲劳[10]。一项研究利用可穿戴设备数据训练递归神经网络,能够比传统的改良早期预警评分平均提前17小时预测患者临床恶化,包括需要快速反应团队干预、非计划性ICU转移等不良事件[11]。一项前瞻性、多中心随机对照试验验证了基于护理记录模式机器学习算法的预警系统(CONCERN)的临床效用。结果显示,与常规护理相比,使用该系统的患者组住院死亡风险降低了36%,住院时间缩短了11%,证实了AI预警系统在真实世界改善患者结局的潜力[12]

多模态数据融合是提升预警系统准确性和前瞻性的另一关键。有研究结合患者人口统计学、基础疾病等静态特征与动态生命体征序列,采用随机森林和长短期记忆网络融合的集成模型,成功预测住院心脏骤停,并在事件发生前13小时即显示出较高的预测效能[13]。类似地,基于Transformer架构的早期预警评分系统,能够处理急诊科患者的时序数据,在预测血管活性药物使用、呼吸支持、脓毒症休克等多种不良结局上,性能显著优于传统的改良早期预警评分[14]。这些进展表明,AI驱动的持续监测与预警系统正从回顾性研究走向前瞻性验证,从单目标预测走向多目标、集成化的临床决策支持,为实现全院范围内的患者安全防护网奠定了基础[15]

3. 脓毒症的全周期人工智能预测与管理:从早期识别到并发症与预后预测

脓毒症因其高发病率、高死亡率和高异质性,成为人工智能在重症领域应用最为广泛和深入的方向之一。在早期识别脓毒症方面,大量研究证实机器学习模型能够显著早于临床诊断识别出高风险患者。一项纳入21项研究的meta分析显示,机器学习算法预测脓毒症的综合受试者工作特征曲线下面积高达0.94,在ICU和急诊科场景下均表现出优秀的诊断效能[16]。多个专门开发的AI系统,如Artificial Intelligence Sepsis Expert能够在符合Sepsis-3标准的确诊前4至12小时发出预警[17],而NAVOY® Sepsis则可在确诊前3小时进行预测[18],这些系统为抗生素等关键治疗争取了宝贵时间。国际多中心验证研究进一步证明了深度学习模型在不同国家、不同医院ICU患者中预测脓毒症的泛化能力,平均可提前约3.7小时检测到80%的脓毒症患者[19]。最新的前瞻性随机临床研究也验证了算法在真实ICU环境(包括COVID-19患者)中的准确性和敏感性[18]

此外,研究尝试通过聚类分析等方法,基于入院时的临床变量将脓毒症患者分为具有不同临床特征和死亡率风险的亚型(如αβγδ型) [20]。虽然不同队列中的亚型分布存在差异,但这种分型理念为个性化治疗提供了框架。有研究开发了仅包含天冬氨酸转氨酶、血清乳酸和碳酸氢盐三个变量的简约模型,能够较为准确地识别出死亡率较高的δ型患者[20]。在并发症预测方面,AI模型显示出巨大潜力。针对脓毒症相关性肝损伤、急性肾损伤、凝血功能障碍等常见严重并发症,研究团队已开发出性能优异的预测模型[21]-[23]。一项多中心研究开发的堆叠集成模型,能够准确预测脓毒症相关肝损伤的发生,关键预测因子包括总胆红素、乳酸、凝血酶原时间等[21]。对于脓毒症相关急性肾损伤,研究不仅预测其发生,还进一步区分严重程度,并确定了48小时和7天两个关键预测时间点,为动态干预提供了依据[23]。多项研究比较了多种机器学习算法在预测脓毒症患者住院死亡率方面的表现。XGBoost、LightGBM等梯度提升算法以及深度学习神经网络通常表现出色,其预测性能(AUC常高于0.85)显著优于简化急性生理学评分II、序贯器官衰竭评估等传统临床评分系统[24]-[26]。这些模型整合了人口学信息、生命体征、实验室检查(包括炎症生物标志物)以及治疗措施等多维度数据[26]。为了提高临床接受度,研究还注重模型的可解释性,利用SHAP等方法揭示影响预测的关键因素,如初始SOFA评分、年龄、血清尿素氮、乳酸等,使临床医生能够理解模型的决策逻辑[22] [26]。此外,AI的应用还延伸到脓毒症相关的心血管事件预测,例如区分脓毒症诱发的心肌病与急性心肌梗死,为精准心血管支持提供参考[27]

4. 人工智能在心脏骤停早期预测与预后评估中的应用

在早期预测心脏骤停方面,AI模型能够从生命体征的时序变化中学习到心脏骤停前的微妙模式。有研究利用床旁生命体征监测数据,基于XGBoost算法开发了心脏骤停预测指数,能在测试集中预测95%的心脏骤停事件,其中80%的预警可提前超过25分钟[28]。另一项研究采用特征筛选和成本敏感学习策略,构建了基于TabNet的预测框架,该框架在不同ICU亚型和不同数据库(MIMIC-IV和eICU-CRD)中均表现出稳定的预测性能,并通过可解释性分析揭示了心脏骤停与非心脏骤停组间的统计学差异特征,为临床决策提供了直观依据[29]。深度学习模型在此领域也展现出优势。一项前瞻性多中心研究验证了基于深度学习的DeepCARSTM系统在普通病房预测住院心脏骤停或非计划ICU转移的效能,其预测准确性显著优于改良早期预警评分和国家早期预警评分等传统方法,且误报警率更低,显示出更高的临床筛查效率[30]

此外利用ICU入院首日的多维度数据,采用LASSO回归、XGBoost等多种机器学习算法构建了住院死亡率的预测模型。这些模型(如LASSO模型、CatBoost模型)在区分生存与死亡患者方面表现出良好的鉴别力和校准度,其预测效能优于国家早期预警评分2 [31] [32]。这些模型通常将年龄、合并症、特定实验室指标(如乳酸、肌酐)以及治疗措施(如是否进行持续肾脏替代治疗)等作为关键预测因子。通过构建列线图或开发网页计算工具,这些模型被转化为便于临床使用的决策辅助工具[31]。值得注意的是,对于自主循环恢复后存活超过72小时的患者,基于72小时临床数据的CatBoost模型仍能有效预测其最终的院内死亡风险,这表明在复苏后阶段,动态的AI风险评估可能持续具有价值[32]

5. 人工智能驱动的机械通气智能管理与决策支持

AI预测机械通气需求,有助于提前准备和优化资源配置。一项针对新生儿ICU的研究开发了深度学习模型,利用电子健康记录数据预测有创机械通气的需求。该模型结合了特征嵌入和双向长短期记忆网络,其预测性能显著优于传统的新生儿早期预警评分系统以及随机森林、XGBoost等机器学习模型,为高危新生儿的早期干预提供了支持[33]。对于已接受机械通气的患者,能否成功脱机拔管是临床面临的重大挑战。预测脱机失败或非计划性拔管风险,是AI应用的重点之一。研究利用ICU数据训练随机森林等模型,成功预测了非计划性拔管事件,其预测性能良好,且所使用的变量易于获取,具有临床实用性[34]。针对脓毒症这一特殊人群,有研究专门开发了基于XGBoost的脱机预测模型,并进一步简化为仅包含四个关键变量的简约模型,该模型在内部和外部验证中均表现出稳定的预测能力,且被开发成网页工具供临床使用[35]。另一项研究则通过数据挖掘和人工智能,发现了包括体重指数、0.1秒口腔闭合压、心率变异性参数等在内的拔管成功预测因子,并建立了动态预测模型[36]

更进一步的AI应用是直接参与通气管理的决策支持。与追求完全自动化的闭环系统不同,当前更受关注的是“决策辅助”系统。这类系统在维持临床医生最终决策权的前提下,提供基于实时数据的、个体化的通气参数调整建议,旨在减少实践差异,提高对肺保护和膈肌保护等目标策略的依从性[37]。REDvent系统就是一种实时努力驱动通气管理的决策辅助工具,它已在二期临床试验中进行测试,目标是帮助实现肺与膈肌保护之间的平衡[37]。人工智能通过分析呼吸机波形、血气结果和血流动力学数据,可以识别患者–呼吸机不同步、推荐最佳呼气末正压、或建议进行自主呼吸试验的时机[6]。这些系统有望将复杂的循证医学指南转化为可操作的、个性化的床边建议,从而减轻医护人员的认知负荷,优化患者通气治疗效果。

然而,在闭环/半闭环决策支持系统的临床部署中,护理人员作为“人机协同”架构的关键节点,其角色定位、操作权限与法律责任边界亟待明确。与医师主导的诊疗决策不同,急危重症护理场景中护士承担持续的病情监测、警报响应与初步干预执行职能,这使得AI系统的输出往往首先经由护士进行临床验证与转化。当前研究多聚焦于AI系统的技术性能与医师决策支持,对护士在协同workflow中的特定职能缺乏系统性界定。具体而言,当AI系统发出脓毒症早期预警或通气参数调整建议时,护士需承担信息核实(如确认传感器数据质量)、情境评估(如结合患者当前临床状态判断建议适用性)及执行决策(如是否立即通知医师或启动协议化干预)的多重角色。然而,这种“算法辅助–护士中介–医师决策”的层级结构引入了复杂的责任归因问题:若护士基于对AI建议的临床判断选择延迟上报,而患者随后发生病情恶化,责任应如何界定?若护士因警报疲劳而忽视AI系统的有效预警,其过失责任与系统设计的可用性缺陷如何区分?此外,护士的操作权限边界亦需规范——在特定紧急情境下,是否授权护士依据AI建议直接调整呼吸机报警权限或启动标准化液体复苏流程,而非等待医师医嘱。这些涉及专业自主权扩展与患者安全权衡的议题,要求在人机协同系统的设计阶段即引入护理学视角,通过明确的人机职责划分协议、分级响应权限矩阵及不良事件追溯机制,构建符合护理实践规范的AI整合路径。

6. 讨论

尽管人工智能在急危重症领域的研究呈爆炸式增长,并展现出巨大的应用潜力,但其从学术研究走向广泛临床部署仍面临一系列严峻挑战。

首要挑战是模型的泛化能力与验证不足。许多高性能模型仅在单中心或特定数据库(如MIMIC)中开发和验证,当应用于不同人群、不同医疗系统或不同数据采集标准的场景时,其性能可能出现显著下降[19]。虽然近期出现了更多跨中心、跨国家的验证研究[19] [38],但大规模、前瞻性、多中心的干预性研究仍然稀缺[12] [18]。其次,模型的可解释性(或称“黑箱”问题)是获得临床信任的关键障碍。医生需要理解模型为何做出特定预测,才能将其整合到复杂的临床决策中。幸运的是,SHAP、LIME等可解释性人工智能方法的应用日益普遍,它们能够量化特征贡献度并以直观方式展示个体预测依据,正逐步提升模型的透明度[21] [22] [39]。此外,数据质量与标准化问题突出。临床数据存在大量缺失值、噪声和记录不一致性,高质量的、标准化的数据是训练可靠AI模型的基石。重症监护环境中常见的高缺失率、非随机缺失(missing not at random, MNAR)数据对算法稳健性构成严峻考验。梯度提升树模型(如XGBoost、LightGBM)因其内置的缺失值处理机制,在稀疏数据环境中通常表现优于深度学习模型;然而,当关键生理参数(如动脉血气、中心静脉压)存在系统性缺失时,此类模型可能产生过度自信的预测,导致“静默失效”(silent failure)。反之,基于注意力机制的深度学习架构虽能捕捉时序依赖关系,但对连续监测数据中的高频缺失极为敏感,需依赖复杂的多重插补或生成式填补策略,增加了推理时延和不确定性累积风险。此外,在资源受限的急诊抢救场景下,轻量级模型(如eCART Lite)的简化优势可能被其无法整合多模态数据的局限性所抵消;而在数据丰富的ICU环境中,复杂模型的性能增益又可能因计算资源需求过高而难以实现实时部署。因此,算法选择不应仅基于预测性能指标,更需综合考量特定护理场景的数据特征、时效性要求、计算资源约束及临床可解释性需求,建立场景适配的算法遴选框架。实时数据的无缝集成、算法的计算效率、以及与现有医院信息系统的互操作性,都是实际部署中必须解决的技术难题[1] [6]

伦理、法律和监管层面的挑战同样不容忽视。算法偏见可能导致对某些人口统计学群体的不公平预测;患者数据隐私和安全必须得到严格保护;AI决策失误的责任界定尚不清晰;相关医疗器械的审批监管路径也在不断探索中[5] [40]。最后,改变临床工作流程和用户接受度是需要时间的组织行为学挑战。AI工具必须设计得直观易用,能够无缝融入繁忙的临床工作,并为医护人员提供明确的价值,才能真正被采纳和使用[1]

展望未来,急危重症人工智能的发展将呈现以下趋势:一是模型将更加注重动态适应和持续学习,能够根据实时数据流和患者个体反应调整预测和建议[5]。二是多模态、多组学数据的融合将成为常态,结合基因组学、蛋白组学、连续生理波形和临床文本,以构建更全面的患者数字画像[2]。三是“通用医疗AI”或领域大模型可能兴起,它们能够处理更广泛的任务,从病情解释、文献总结到生成个性化的诊疗计划建议[1]。四是标准化评估框架和共享基准的建立,将促进研究的可比性和可复现性[41] [42]。最终,通过跨学科的紧密合作(包括临床医生、数据科学家、工程师、伦理学家和政策制定者),克服现有障碍,人工智能有望从强大的预测工具,演进为可信赖的、可解释的、深度集成的智能临床伙伴,共同推动急危重症医学迈向精准化、预见性的新阶段[40] [43]

参考文献

[1] Biesheuvel, L.A., Dongelmans, D.A. and Elbers, P.W.G. (2024) Artificial Intelligence to Advance Acute and Intensive Care Medicine. Current Opinion in Critical Care, 30, 246-250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[2] Li, F., Wang, S., Gao, Z., Qing, M., Pan, S., Liu, Y., et al. (2025) Harnessing Artificial Intelligence in Sepsis Care: Advances in Early Detection, Personalized Treatment, and Real-Time Monitoring. Frontiers in Medicine, 11, Article ID: 1510792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[3] Churpek, M.M., Yuen, T.C., Winslow, C., Meltzer, D.O., Kattan, M.W. and Edelson, D.P. (2016) Multicenter Comparison of Machine Learning Methods and Conventional Regression for Predicting Clinical Deterioration on the Wards. Critical Care Medicine, 44, 368-374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[4] Churpek, M.M., Carey, K.A., Snyder, A., et al. (2024) Multicenter Development and Prospective Validation of eCARTv5: A Gradient Boosted Machine Learning Early Warning Score. medRxiv.
[5] Papareddy, P., Lobo, T.J., Holub, M., Bouma, H., Maca, J., Strodthoff, N., et al. (2025) Transforming Sepsis Management: AI-Driven Innovations in Early Detection and Tailored Therapies. Critical Care, 29, Article No. 366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[6] Singh, N.P., Mujawar, M.A. and Golani, A. (2025) Role of Artificial Intelligence in Enhancing Mechanical Ventilation—A Peek into the Future. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, 69, 722-728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[7] Akel, M.A., Carey, K.A., Winslow, C.J., Churpek, M.M. and Edelson, D.P. (2021) Less Is More: Detecting Clinical Deterioration in the Hospital with Machine Learning Using Only Age, Heart Rate, and Respiratory Rate. Resuscitation, 168, 6-10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8] Hyland, S.L., Faltys, M., Hüser, M., Lyu, X., Gumbsch, T., Esteban, C., et al. (2020) Early Prediction of Circulatory Failure in the Intensive Care Unit Using Machine Learning. Nature Medicine, 26, 364-373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[9] Chiang, D., Jiang, Z., Tian, C. and Wang, C. (2025) Development and Validation of a Dynamic Early Warning System with Time-Varying Machine Learning Models for Predicting Hemodynamic Instability in Critical Care: A Multicohort Study. Critical Care, 29, Article No. 318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[10] Aagaard, N., Aasvang, E.K. and Meyhoff, C.S. (2024) Discrepancies between Promised and Actual AI Capabilities in the Continuous Vital Sign Monitoring of In-Hospital Patients: A Review of the Current Evidence. Sensors, 24, Article 6497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] Scheid, M.R., Friedmann, B., Oppenheim, M., et al. (2025) Beyond Episodic Early Warning Systems: A Continuous Clinical Alert System for Early Detection of In-Hospital Deterioration. medRxiv.
[12] Rossetti, S.C., Dykes, P.C., Knaplund, C., Cho, S., Withall, J., Lowenthal, G., et al. (2025) Real-Time Surveillance System for Patient Deterioration: A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial. Nature Medicine, 31, 1895-1902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[13] Lee, H., Kuo, P., Qian, F., Li, C., Hu, J., Hsu, W., et al. (2024) Prediction of In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in the Intensive Care Unit: Machine Learning-Based Multimodal Approach. JMIR Medical Informatics, 12, e49142-e49142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[14] Chang, H., Park, J.E., Lee, D., Lee, K., Jekal, S.Y., Moon, K.T., et al. (2025) Development and Validation of a Transformer Model-Based Early Warning Score for Real-Time Prediction of Adverse Outcomes in the Emergency Department. Scientific Reports, 15, Article No. 23021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15] Henry, K.E. and Giannini, H.M. (2024) Early Warning Systems for Critical Illness Outside the Intensive Care Unit. Critical Care Clinics, 40, 561-581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[16] Zhang, H., Wang, C. and Yang, N. (2024) Diagnostic Performance of Machine-Learning Algorithms for Sepsis Prediction: An Updated Meta-Analysis. Technology and Health Care, 32, 4291-4307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[17] Nemati, S., Holder, A., Razmi, F., Stanley, M.D., Clifford, G.D. and Buchman, T.G. (2018) An Interpretable Machine Learning Model for Accurate Prediction of Sepsis in the ICU. Critical Care Medicine, 46, 547-553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[18] Persson, I., Macura, A., Becedas, D. and Sjövall, F. (2024) Early Prediction of Sepsis in Intensive Care Patients Using the Machine Learning Algorithm NAVOY® Sepsis, a Prospective Randomized Clinical Validation Study. Journal of Critical Care, 80, Article 154400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[19] Moor, M., Bennett, N., Plečko, D., Horn, M., Rieck, B., Meinshausen, N., et al. (2023) Predicting Sepsis Using Deep Learning across International Sites: A Retrospective Development and Validation Study. eClinicalMedicine, 62, Article 102124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[20] van Amstel, R.B.E., Rademaker, E., Kennedy, J.N., Bos, L.D.J., Peters-Sengers, H., Butler, J.M., et al. (2025) Clinical Subtypes in Critically Ill Patients with Sepsis: Validation and Parsimonious Classifier Model Development. Critical Care, 29, Article No. 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[21] Lei, J., Zhai, J., Zhang, Y., Qi, J. and Sun, C. (2025) Supervised Machine Learning Models for Predicting Sepsis-Associated Liver Injury in Patients with Sepsis: Development and Validation Study Based on a Multicenter Cohort Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e66733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[22] Zhou, S., Lu, Z., Liu, Y., Wang, M., Zhou, W., Cui, X., et al. (2024) Interpretable Machine Learning Model for Early Prediction of 28-Day Mortality in ICU Patients with Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy: Development and Validation. European Journal of Medical Research, 29, Article No. 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[23] Ge, X., Chen, W., Shi, J., Zhang, J., Tai, H., Zhang, Y., et al. (2025) Prediction of Moderate-to-Severe Sepsis-Associated Acute Kidney Injury Using a Dual-Timepoint Machine Learning Model: Development, Multiregional Validation, and Clinical Deployment Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e73840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[24] Wang, Y., Gao, Z., Zhang, Y., Lu, Z. and Sun, F. (2024) Early Sepsis Mortality Prediction Model Based on Interpretable Machine Learning Approach: Development and Validation Study. Internal and Emergency Medicine, 20, 909-918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[25] Bao, C., Deng, F. and Zhao, S. (2023) Machine-Learning Models for Prediction of Sepsis Patients Mortality. Medicina Intensiva, 47, 315-325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[26] Zhang, G., Shao, F., Yuan, W., Wu, J., Qi, X., Gao, J., et al. (2024) Predicting Sepsis In-Hospital Mortality with Machine Learning: A Multi-Center Study Using Clinical and Inflammatory Biomarkers. European Journal of Medical Research, 29, Article No. 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[27] Fang, S., Jin, H., Zhang, J., Wang, Y., Nan, W., Feng, Y., et al. (2024) Machine Learning for Predicting Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients with Sepsis. Scientific Reports, 14, Article No. 30629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[28] Yijing, L., Wenyu, Y., Kang, Y., Shengyu, Z., Xianliang, H., Xingliang, J., et al. (2022) Prediction of Cardiac Arrest in Critically Ill Patients Based on Bedside Vital Signs Monitoring. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 214, Article 106568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[29] Kim, Y.K., Seo, W., Lee, S.J., Koo, J.H., Kim, G.C., Song, H.S., et al. (2024) Early Prediction of Cardiac Arrest in the Intensive Care Unit Using Explainable Machine Learning: Retrospective Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26, e62890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[30] Cho, K., Kim, J.S., Lee, D.H., Lee, S., Song, M.J., Lim, S.Y., et al. (2023) Prospective, Multicenter Validation of the Deep Learning-Based Cardiac Arrest Risk Management System for Predicting In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest or Unplanned Intensive Care Unit Transfer in Patients Admitted to General Wards. Critical Care, 27, Article No. 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[31] Sun, Y., He, Z., Ren, J. and Wu, Y. (2023) Prediction Model of In-Hospital Mortality in Intensive Care Unit Patients with Cardiac Arrest: A Retrospective Analysis of MIMIC-IV Database Based on Machine Learning. BMC Anesthesiology, 23, Article No. 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[32] Ni, P., Zhang, S., Zhang, G., Zhang, W., Zhang, H., Zhu, Y., et al. (2025) Development and Validation of Machine Learning-Based Prediction Model for Outcome of Cardiac Arrest in Intensive Care Units. Scientific Reports, 15, Article No. 8691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[33] Kim, Y., Kim, H., Choi, J., Cho, K., Yoo, D., Lee, Y., et al. (2023) Early Prediction of Need for Invasive Mechanical Ventilation in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Using Artificial Intelligence and Electronic Health Records: A Clinical Study. BMC Pediatrics, 23, Article No. 525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[34] Hur, S., Min, J.Y., Yoo, J., Kim, K., Chung, C.R., Dykes, P.C., et al. (2021) Development and Validation of Unplanned Extubation Prediction Models Using Intensive Care Unit Data: Retrospective, Comparative, Machine Learning Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23, e23508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[35] Liu, W., Tao, G., Zhang, Y., Xiao, W., Zhang, J., Liu, Y., et al. (2022) A Simple Weaning Model Based on Interpretable Machine Learning Algorithm for Patients with Sepsis: A Research of MIMIC-IV and eICU Databases. Frontiers in Medicine, 8, Article ID: 814566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[36] Menguy, J., De Longeaux, K., Bodenes, L., Hourmant, B. and L’Her, E. (2023) Defining Predictors for Successful Mechanical Ventilation Weaning, Using a Data-Mining Process and Artificial Intelligence. Scientific Reports, 13, Article No. 20483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[37] Hotz, J.C., Chang, D., Khemani, R.G. and Newth, C.J.L. (2026) Decision Assist during Mechanical Ventilation. Respiratory Care, 71, 226-236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[38] Lim, L., Gim, U., Cho, K., Yoo, D., Ryu, H.G. and Lee, H. (2024) Real-Time Machine Learning Model to Predict Short-Term Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: Development and International Validation. Critical Care, 28, Article No. 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[39] Guan, C., Gong, A., Zhao, Y., Yin, C., Geng, L., Liu, L., et al. (2024) Interpretable Machine Learning Model for New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation Prediction in Critically Ill Patients: A Multi-Center Study. Critical Care, 28, Article No. 349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[40] Țocu, G., Lisă, E.L., Tutunaru, D., Mihailov, R., Șerban, C., Luțenco, V., et al. (2025) The Potential of Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Sepsis: A Narrative Review. Diagnostics, 15, Article 2169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[41] Moor, M., Rieck, B., Horn, M., Jutzeler, C.R. and Borgwardt, K. (2021) Early Prediction of Sepsis in the ICU Using Machine Learning: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Medicine, 8, Article ID: 607952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[42] Zubair, M., Din, I., Sarwar, N., Elov, B., Makhmudov, S. and Trabelsi, Z. (2025) Revolutionizing Sepsis Diagnosis Using Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models: A Systematic Literature Review. BMC Infectious Diseases, 25, Article No. 1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[43] Tungushpayev, M., Suleimenova, D., Sarria-Santamerra, A., Aimyshev, T., Gaipov, A. and Viderman, D. (2025) The Value of Machine and Deep Learning in Management of Critically Ill Patients: An Umbrella Review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 204, Article 106081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]