Cited by 58Machine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment

External validation of AI-based scoring systems in the ICU: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Rockenschaub, Patrick, Akay, Ela Marie, Carlisle, Benjamin Gregory, Hilbert, Adam, Wendland, Joshua, Meyer-Eschenbach, Falk, Näher, Anatol-Fiete, Frey, Dietmar +1 more·2025·BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Abstract

Background: Machine learning (ML) is increasingly used to predict clinical deterioration in intensive care unit (ICU) patients through scoring systems. Although promising, such algorithms often overfit their training cohort and perform worse at new hospitals. Thus, external validation is a critical – but frequently overlooked – step to establish the reliability of predicted risk scores to translate them into clinical practice. We systematically reviewed how regularly external validation of ML-based risk scores is performed and how their performance changed in external data. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, and arXiv for studies using ML to predict deterioration of ICU patients from routine data. We included primary research published in English before December 2023. We summarised how many studies were externally validated, assessing differences over time, by outcome, and by data source. For validated studies, we evaluated the change in area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) attributable to external validation using linear mixed-effects models. Results: We included 572 studies, of which 84 (14.7%) were externally validated, increasing to 23.9% by 2023. Validated studies made disproportionate use of open-source data, with two well-known US datasets (MIMIC and eICU) accounting for 83.3% of studies. On average, AUROC was reduced by -0.037 (95% CI -0.052 to -0.027) in external data, with more than 0.05 reduction in 49.5% of studies. Discussion: External validation, although increasing, remains uncommon. Performance was generally lower in external data, questioning the reliability of some recently proposed ML-based scores. Interpretation of the results was challenged by an overreliance on the same few datasets, implicit differences in case mix, and exclusive use of AUROC.

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/s12911-024-02830-7

Cites

48 of 48 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?

  • A systematic review showed marked between-hospital variability in performance, indicating that transportability cannot be assumed even for widely deployed systems.

    “A systematic review showed marked between-hospital variability in performance, indicating that transportability cannot be assumed even for widely deployed systems [9].”

    From Beyond Model Development in Healthcare AI: Post-Development Robustness, Post-Deployment Monitoring, and Lifecycle Governance—A Scoping Review of Reviews (2026) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Results section (‘Performance at new hospitals’; page unavailable) reports that external-validation performance varied substantially and was, on average, lower than internal-validation performance. The Discussion says this makes validation at new hospitals important. The review does not establish that the systems showing this variability were widely deployed; it describes widespread clinical adoption as a goal. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [14]Hüser M, Faltys M, Lyu X, Barber C, Hyland SL, Merz TM, et al. Early prediction of respiratory failure in the intensive care unit. arXiv [cs.LG]; 2021.
  2. [23]Carlisle BG. Numbat systematic review manager. Berlin, Germany: The Grey Literature; 2014.
  3. [27]Gelman A, Jakulin A, Pittau MG, Su Y-S. A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models. aoas. 2008;2:1360–83.
  4. [47]Arnrich B, Choi E, Fries JA, McDermott MBA, Oh J, Pollard T et al. Medical Event Data Standard (MEDS): Facilitating Machine Learning for Health. In: ICLR 2024 Workshop on Learning from Time Series For Health. 2024.
  5. [48]van de Water R, Schmidt HNA, Elbers P, Thoral P, Arnrich B, Rockenschaub P. Yet Another ICU Benchmark: A Flexible Multi-Center Framework for Clinical ML. In: The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. 2024.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rockenschaub, P., Akay, E. M., Carlisle, B. G., Hilbert, A., Wendland, J., Meyer-Eschenbach, F., Näher, A.-F., Frey, D., & Madai, V. I.
Affiliations
  • Innsbruck Medical University (AT)
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • McGill University (CA)
  • Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
  • Hasso Plattner Institute (DE)
  • Birmingham City University (GB)
Corresponding author
Madai, Vince Istvan
Venue
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published
2025-01-06
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
5-5
ISSN
1472-6947 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4406090644
Cited by
58
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 18
FWCI
5.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PUBLISSO (German National Library of Medicine) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
external validation, machine learning, clinical deterioration prediction, intensive care unit, risk score, overfitting, mimics, eICU, open-source dataset, area under the receiver operating characteristic, case mix, generalizability
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Reproducibility of Results

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