Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42179657›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2026

The IMPACT framework for evaluating generative AI in critical care: development and multinational consensus validation.

Yu-Chang Yeh, Ming-Chieh Shih, Daniel De Backer, Leo Anthony Celi, Kay Choong See, Tomoko Fujii, Lowell Ling, Wasineenart Mongkolpun, Hsiang-Wei Hu, Hsuan-Yu Chen and 17 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

27 authors.

Yu-Chang YehDepartment of Anesthesiology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ming-Chieh ShihSchool of Medicine, College of Life Sciences and Medicine, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Daniel De BackerDepartment of Intensive Care, CHIREC Hospitals, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Leo Anthony CeliLaboratory for Computational Physiology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, United States of America.
Kay Choong SeeDivision of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore.
Tomoko FujiiDepartment of Intensive Care, Jikei University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Lowell LingDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Wasineenart MongkolpunDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Hsiang-Wei HuTaiwan Artificial Intelligence Association, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hsuan-Yu ChenDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Wei-Cheng ChenRespiratory Intensive Care Unit, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Bernard CholleyDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, AP-HP, Paris, France.
Kean Khang FongDepartment of Medicine, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia.
Ho-Geol RyuDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Sungwon NaDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Moritoki EgiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.
Wing-Sum ChanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei, Taiwan.
Kuan-Fu ChenClinical Informatics and Medical Statistics Research Center, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Rishikesan KamaleswaranDepartment of Surgery and Department of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America.
Yu-Chen ChuangInformation Technology Office, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chi-Ju YangDepartment of Pharmacy, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Wei-Ling HsiaoDepartment of Nursing, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Sheng-Ru LaiDepartment of Dietetics, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
David KuMonash Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Ahsina JahanDepartment of ICU and Emergency, Brahmanbaria Medical College Hospital, Brahmanbaria, Bangladesh.
Greg S MartinDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, United States of America.
IMPACT Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly used for clinical decision support in critical care, yet standardized methods for evaluating GenAI content in intensive care settings are lacking. Existing metrics assess textual similarity but fail to capture clinical accuracy, reasoning quality, or urgency. Methods: We developed and validated the IMPACT framework through a five-phase multinational panel consensus process. Reporting adhered to the ACCORD guideline. A steering committee of eight persons provided clinical and methodological oversight. Panelists were recruited through purposive sampling to ensure geographic and multidisciplinary representation. Content validity was assessed using the Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and Item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI), with retention thresholds set at 70% agreement and I-CVI ≥0.80. Results: A total of 58 panelists from 12 countries and regions participated, with 42 completing formal consensus voting. Participants included intensivists, physicians with AI research expertise, information technology specialists, and other critical care professionals. All six IMPACT domains exceeded validity thresholds (mean agreement 89.3%, CVR = 0.79, I-CVI = 0.92). Of 24 candidate subitems, 21 met retention criteria (mean agreement 85.7%, CVR = 0.71, I-CVI = 0.90). Three subitems were removed due to insufficient consensus and conceptual overlap. The validated framework comprises six domains with 21 subitems. Conclusions: The IMPACT framework provides a consensus-validated approach for evaluating GenAI clinical decision support in intensive care, addressing gaps in current evaluation methods.

Indexed as

Clinical decision supportConsensusContent validityCritical careGenerative artificial intelligence

Identifiers

PMID42179657
PMCPMC13195341

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.