ArticleCritical care (London, England)2025
Enhancing predictive modeling for respiratory support with LLM-driven guideline adherence.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 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.
- Artificial intelligence in acute and critical care: current challenges and strategic solutions.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOptimal respiratory support selection between high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for intensive care units (ICU) patients at risk of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) remains unclear, particularly in cases not represented in prior clinical trials. We previously developed RepFlow-CFR, a deep counterfactual model estimating individualized treatment effects (ITE) of HFNC versus NIV. However, interpretability and guideline alignment remain challenges for clinical adoption. This study describes the development and integration of a clinical guideline-driven LLM to enhance deep counterfactual model recommendations for NIV versus HFNC in patients at high-risk for invasive mechanical ventilation.
methodsWe enhanced RepFlow-CFR by incorporating a large language model (LLM, Claude 3.5 Sonnet) to enforce clinical guideline adherence and generate explainable treatment recommendations. The LLM was configured in a HIPAA-compliant AWS environment and prompted using structured patient data, clinical notes, and formal guideline criteria. Recommendations from RepFlow-CFR and LLM were compared to actual treatment decisions to assess concordance. We evaluated IMV and mortality/hospice rates across concordant and discordant groups. Additionally, we conducted a structured chart review of 20 cases to assess the clinical validity and safety of LLM-driven recommendations.
resultsAmong 1,261 ICU encounters, treatments concordant with LLM-enhanced recommendations were associated with lower IMV rates. For the HFNC recommendation, IMV occurred in 46/188 (24.47%) when care was concordant versus 9/17(52.94%) when discordant, corresponding to a 97.33% relative risk increase when discordant. Concordance was also associated with reduced mortality or hospice discharge (odds ratio 0.670, p = 0.046). In a 20-case chart review, 19/20 (95%) LLM recommendations aligned with clinical guidelines and physicians agreed with 13/20 (65%) final recommendations. Errors were noted in 11/20 cases, most rated low or moderate risk; 2/20 were judged as potentially causing severe harm.
conclusionsIntegrating LLMs for guideline enforcement improves the interpretability and clinical alignment of counterfactual models in respiratory support decision-making. This hybrid framework not only enhances concordance with real-world practice but may also improve patient outcomes. Future work will refine contraindication detection and expand validation to prospective clinical trials.
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.