ReviewCritical care (London, England)2026
Machine learning in ARDS: an intensivist's guide to artificial intelligence applications.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Imaging in ARDS: physiology-guided decisions in the AI era.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Evolutionary patterns and research frontiers in ventilator-induced lung injury: a bibliometric analysis (2000-2024).Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- One syndrome, many diseases: toward precision pharmacotherapy in acute respiratory distress syndrome.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous, life-threatening condition with persistent diagnostic uncertainty, limited causal treatments, and high mortality in intensive care. ARDS management remains largely supportive, and conventional scores and trial designs have struggled to account for its biological and clinical heterogeneity.
objectiveThis narrative review summarizes current and emerging applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in ARDS and mechanical ventilation. It focuses on how Machine Learning (ML) can refine early risk prediction, diagnosis, phenotyping, management and outcome prediction, while outlining the strengths, weaknesses and nuances of these applications.
findingsML models using electronic health records, imaging, physiological waveforms and omics data show strong performance for predicting ARDS onset, enabling early diagnosis, optimising management and forecasting outcomes. These models show performance equivalent to and often outperform traditional guidelines and scores. However, most of these models remain limited to the research setting and show limited clinical adoption. CHALLENGES: Most studies are retrospective, single-center and lack rigorous external validation, limiting generalizability and real-world impact. Additional challenges include data quality and bias, poor calibration and scarce decision-curve analyses, limited interpretability, and the absence of prospective trials demonstrating that AI-guided strategies improve patient-centered outcomes.
conclusionML has substantial potential to advance precision medicine in ARDS by enabling predictive and prognostic enrichment and supporting personalized ventilatory care. Its safe and equitable deployment, however, requires standardized methodology, transparent reporting, multicenter prospective validation, and clinician-led governance to ensure that AI augments rather than replaces expert clinical judgment.
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.