ReviewCurrent opinion in critical care2025
Enriching patient populations in ICU trials: reducing heterogeneity through machine learning.
Review in Current opinion in critical care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence-guided nutritional therapy in the ICU.Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care · 2026Review
- AI-Enabled Precision Nutrition in the ICU: A Narrative Review and Implementation Roadmap.Nutrients · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewDespite the pivotal role of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in critical care research, many have failed to demonstrate significant benefits, particularly in nutrition interventions. This review highlights how patient heterogeneity affects trial outcomes and explores how artificial intelligence and machine learning can address this issue by identifying subgroups with distinct treatment responses, improving trial design, and enhancing the precision of nutritional interventions. RECENT
findingsRCTs estimate the average treatment effect, which can obscure heterogeneous treatment effects, where some patients benefit while others experience no effect or harm. Recent studies highlight that artificial intelligence techniques such as clustering, predictive modeling, causal artificial intelligence, and reinforcement learning have the potential to individualize treatments and decrease heterogeneity in trials. Digital twins and artificial intelligence-driven adaptive trial designs further enable personalized interventions, optimizing study populations and improving treatment precision. SUMMARY: The integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning into clinical trials offers a powerful strategy to refine patient selection, reduce variability, and enhance the detection of meaningful treatment effects. These advancements hold significant potential to transform critical care nutrition research, leading to more precise, personalized, and effective interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.