Cited by 52Machine Learning in HealthcareHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapySepsis Diagnosis and Treatment

An artificial intelligence tool to predict fluid requirement in the intensive care unit: a proof-of-concept study

Open access
Celi, Leo Anthony, Hinske Christian, L, Alterovitz, Gil, Szolovits, Peter·2008·Critical Care

Abstract

Introduction: The goal of personalised medicine in the intensive care unit (ICU) is to predict which diagnostic tests, monitoring interventions and treatments translate to improved outcomes given the variation between patients. Unfortunately, processes such as gene transcription and drug metabolism are dynamic in the critically ill; that is, information obtained during static non-diseased conditions may have limited applicability. We propose an alternative way of personalising medicine in the ICU on a real-time basis using information derived from the application of artificial intelligence on a high-resolution database. Calculation of maintenance fluid requirement at the height of systemic inflammatory response was selected to investigate the feasibility of this approach. Methods: The Multi-parameter Intelligent Monitoring for Intensive Care II (MIMIC II) is a database of patients admitted to the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center ICU in Boston. Patients who were on vasopressors for more than six hours during the first 24 hours of admission were identified from the database. Demographic and physiological variables that might affect fluid requirement or reflect the intravascular volume during the first 24 hours in the ICU were extracted from the database. The outcome to be predicted is the total amount of fluid given during the second 24 hours in the ICU, including all the fluid boluses administered. Results: We represented the variables by learning a Bayesian network from the underlying data. Using 10-fold cross-validation repeated 100 times, the accuracy of the model in predicting the outcome is 77.8%. The network generated has a threshold Bayes factor of seven representing the posterior probability of the model given the observed data. This Bayes factor translates into p < 0.05 assuming a Gaussian distribution of the variables. Conclusions: Based on the model, the probability that a patient would require a certain range of fluid on day two can be predicted. In the presence of a larger database, analysis may be limited to patients with identical clinical presentation, demographic factors, co-morbidities, current physiological data and those who did not develop complications as a result of fluid administration. By better predicting maintenance fluid requirements based on the previous day's physiological variables, one might be able to prevent hypotensive episodes requiring fluid boluses during the course of the following day.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/cc7140

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Celi et al. found that a Bayesian network model achieved a predictive accuracy of 77.8% in predicting fluid needs on ICU day two from early ICU data.

    “The Bayesian network model achieved a predictive accuracy of 77.8%, demonstrating that AI-driven analysis of early ICU data can estimate subsequent fluid requirements, supporting its potential role in personalized, data-driven critical care decision-making.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Celi, L. A., Hinske Christian, L., Alterovitz, G., & Szolovits, P.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Celi, Leo Anthony
Venue
Critical Care
Published
2008-12-01
Volume
12
Issue
6
Pages
R151-R151
ISSN
1364-8535 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2167202211
Cited by
52
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Critical Care (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OPUS (Augsburg University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01EB001659)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (T15LM007092)
  • National Center for Research Resources (P41RR013622)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
intensive care unit, Bayesian networks, personalized medicine, vasopressor use, hypotension prevention, MIMIC II database, real-time prediction, critically ill patients
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Boston, Decision Making, Computer-Assisted, Female, Fluid Therapy, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Male, Vasoconstrictor Agents, Information Storage and Retrieval

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review