ReviewFrontiers in digital health2025
Applications of generative artificial intelligence in outcome prediction in intensive care medicine-a scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Palliative Care Physicians' Perceptions about Using Artificial Intelligence for Prognostication.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When a patient survives the first 24 h in intensive care, outcome prediction is crucial for further treatment decisions. As recent advances have shown that Artificial Intelligence (AI) outperforms clinicians in prognostication, and especially generative AI has developed rapidly in the past ten years, this scoping review aimed to explore the use of generative AI models for outcome prediction in intensive care medicine. Of the 481 records found in the search, 119 studies were subjected to abstract screening and, when necessary, full-text review for eligibility assessment. Twenty-two studies and two review articles were finally included. The studies were categorized into three prototypical use cases for generative AI in outcome prediction in intensive care: (i) data augmentation, (ii) feature generation from unstructured data, and (iii) prediction by the generative model. In the first two use cases, the generative models worked together with downstream predictive models. In the third use case, the generative models made the predictions themselves. The studies within data augmentation either fell into the area of compensation for class imbalances by producing additional synthetic cases or imputation of missing values. Overall, Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) was the most frequently used technology (8/22 studies; 36%), followed by Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT) (7/22 studies; 32%). All publications except one were from the last four years. This review shows that generative AI has immense potential in the future, and continuous monitoring of new technologies is necessary to ensure that patients receive the best possible care.
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.