ArticleAnnals of intensive care2026
The IMPACT framework for evaluating generative AI in critical care: development and multinational consensus validation.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.