The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Prediction, Diagnosis, and Management of Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU)
Main Article Content
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8954-5562
Seyed Bashir Mirta
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4373-1383
Sara Razi
http://orcid.org/0009-0000-1697-6700
Abstract
Background: Sepsis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide, contributing to millions of deaths annually. Delayed recognition and treatment remain the most critical factors associated with poor outcomes, as conventional diagnostic approaches such as SIRS, SOFA, and qSOFA often fail to capture the heterogeneity of sepsis. The dynamic physiology of critically ill patients, combined with the complexity of large-scale clinical data, underscores the urgent need for innovative approaches to improve early detection and personalized management.
Objective: This review examines the emerging role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) encompassing machine learning, deep learning, natural language processing, and reinforcement learning in predicting, diagnosing, and managing sepsis in ICU settings.
Methods: We conducted a comprehensive review of recent AI driven models applied to sepsis, focusing on their ability to predict onset, anticipate organ dysfunction, guide individualized therapy, and optimize antimicrobial stewardship. The analysis also included evaluation of commercially available and FDA-cleared tools, with attention to validation studies, clinical integration, and regulatory considerations.
Conclusions: AI has the potential to transform sepsis care in ICUs by enabling earlier diagnosis, supporting clinical decision-making, and personalizing treatment strategies. To realize this promise, future work should focus on enhancing explainability through explainable AI (XAI), conducting large-scale multicenter validation studies, and establishing clear regulatory frameworks. With these advances, AI-driven systems are likely to become integral components of critical care practice.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
2. Hazelzet JA. Can fuzzy logic make things more clear? Crit Care. 2009;13(1):116. PMID:19291252.
3. Bali J, Garg R, Bali R. Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare and biomedical research: why a strong computational/AI bioethics framework is required? Indian J Ophthalmol. 2019;67(1):3–6.
4. Panch T, Szolovits P, Atun R. Artificial intelligence, machine learning and health systems. J Glob Health. 2018;8(2):020303.
5. Yu KH, Beam AL, Kohane IS. Artificial intelligence in healthcare. Nat Biomed Eng. 2018;2(10):719–731.
6. Miotto R, Wang F, Wang S, Jiang X, Dudley JT. Deep learning for healthcare: review, opportunities and challenges. Brief Bioinform. 2018;19(6):1236–1246.
7. Mahapatra D, Schueffler P, Tielbeek JAW, Buhmann JM, Vos FM. A supervised learning based approach to detect Crohn’s disease in abdominal MR volumes. In: MICCAI 2012. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2012. p. 97–106.
8. Gottesman O, Johansson F, Komorowski M, et al. Guidelines for reinforcement learning in healthcare. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):16–18.
9. Clermont G. Artificial neural networks as prediction tools in the critically ill. Crit Care. 2005;9(2):153–154.
10. Dybowski R, Weller P, Chang R, Gant V. Prediction of outcome in critically ill patients using artificial neural network synthesised by genetic algorithm. Lancet. 1996;347(9009):1146–1150.
11. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(2):580–637.
12. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–810.
13. Seymour CW, Kennedy JN, Wang S, et al. Derivation, validation, and potential treatment implications of novel clinical phenotypes for sepsis. JAMA. 2019;321(20):2003–2017.
14. Quinten VM, van Meurs M, Ligtenberg JJ, Ter Maaten JC. Prehospital antibiotics for sepsis: beyond mortality? Lancet Respir Med. 2018;6(3):e8.
15. Goulden R, Hoyle MC, Monis J, et al. qSOFA, SIRS and NEWS for predicting in-hospital mortality and ICU admission in emergency admissions treated as sepsis. Emerg Med J. 2018;35(6):345–349.
16. Anand V, Zhang Z, Kadri SS, Klompas M, Rhee C. Epidemiology of qSOFA criteria in undifferentiated patients and association with suspected infection and sepsis. Chest. 2019;156(6):1287–1296.
17. Quinten VM, van Meurs M, Wolffensperger AE, Ter Maaten JC, Ligtenberg JJM. Sepsis patients in the emergency department: stratification using the clinical impression score, predisposition, infection, response and organ dysfunction score or quick sequential organ failure assessment score? Eur J Emerg Med. 2018;25(5):328–3.
18. Gulshan V, Peng L, Coram M, et al. Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for detection of diabetic retinopathy in retinal fundus photographs. JAMA. 2016;316(22):2402–2410. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.17216.
19. Esteva A, Kuprel B, Novoa RA, et al. Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature. 2017;542(7639):115–118.
20. Melendez-Torres GJ, O’Mara-Eves A, Thomas J, Brunton G, Caird J, Petticrew M. Interpretive analysis of 85 systematic reviews suggests that narrative syntheses and meta-analyses are incommensurate in argumentation. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8(1):109–118.
21. Lu X, Xue L, Sun W, et al. Identification of key pathogenic genes of sepsis based on the Gene Expression Omnibus database. Mol Med Rep. 2018;17(2):3042–3054.
22. Moons KG, Wolff RF, Riley RD, et al. PROBAST: a tool to assess risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(1):51–58.
23. Delahanty RJ, Alvarez J, Flynn LM, Sherwin RL, Jones SS. Development and evaluation of a machine learning model for the early identification of patients at risk for sepsis. Ann Emerg Med. 2019;73(4):334–344.
24. Barton C, Chettipally U, Zhou Y, et al. Evaluation of a machine learning algorithm for up to 48-hour advance prediction of sepsis using six vital signs. Comput Biol Med. 2019;109:79–84. doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2019.04.027.
25. Van Steenkiste T, Ruyssinck J, De Baets L, et al. Accurate prediction of blood culture outcome in the intensive care unit using long short-term memory neural networks. Artif Intell Med. 2018;95:27–39.
26. Oonsivilai M, Mo Y, Luangasanatip N, et al. Using machine learning to guide targeted and locally-tailored empiric antibiotic prescribing in a children’s hospital in Cambodia. Wellcome Open Res. 2018;3:131.
27. Lamping F, Jack T, Rübsamen N, et al. Development and validation of a diagnostic model for early differentiation of sepsis and non-infectious SIRS in critically ill children using machine-learning algorithms. BMC Pediatr. 2018;18(1):112.
28. Ratzinger F, Haslacher H, Perkmann T, et al. Machine learning for fast identification of bacteraemia in SIRS patients treated on standard care wards: a cohort study. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):12233.
29. Aushev A, Ripoll VR, Vellido A, et al. Feature selection for the accurate prediction of septic and cardiogenic shock ICU mortality in the acute phase. PLoS One. 2018;13(11):e0199089.
30. García-Gallo JE, Fonseca-Ruiz NJ, Celi LA, Duitama-Muñoz JF. A machine learning-based model for 1-year mortality prediction in patients admitted to an intensive care unit with a diagnosis of sepsis. Med Intensiva. 2018;42(5):263–270.