The ICU as a Computational Phenotype

 

The ICU as a Computational Phenotype: A Paradigm Shift Toward Data-Driven Critical Care Medicine

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Traditional critical care medicine relies on static diagnostic labels that inadequately capture the dynamic complexity of critically ill patients. The computational phenotype represents a revolutionary approach that characterizes patients through their unique, real-time physiological data signatures rather than conventional disease classifications.

Objective: To review the emerging concept of computational phenotyping in critical care and explore its potential to transform ICU practice from diagnosis-based to data-driven precision medicine.

Methods: Comprehensive review of current literature on computational phenotyping, machine learning applications in critical care, and precision medicine approaches in ICU settings.

Results: Computational phenotyping enables the classification of patients into dynamic subgroups based on multi-dimensional data patterns, potentially improving therapeutic targeting and outcomes prediction beyond traditional diagnostic approaches.

Conclusions: The computational phenotype paradigm offers a promising framework for personalized critical care, moving beyond the limitations of static diagnostic labels toward real-time, data-driven treatment algorithms.

Keywords: Computational phenotyping, precision medicine, critical care, machine learning, personalized therapy, ICU informatics

---

Introduction

The intensive care unit represents the ultimate convergence of human physiology and advanced monitoring technology. Every critically ill patient generates thousands of data points hourly—vital signs, laboratory values, ventilator parameters, fluid balances, and medication responses. Yet despite this data abundance, clinical decision-making remains largely anchored to diagnostic labels established over a century ago: septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), acute kidney injury (AKI). These static classifications, while clinically useful, fail to capture the dynamic, multidimensional nature of critical illness.¹

The concept of the "computational phenotype" emerges as a transformative paradigm that transcends traditional diagnostic boundaries. Rather than treating a patient labeled with "septic shock," intensivists would treat a patient characterized as a "High-Amplitude Cytokine Oscillator with Hemodynamic Instability Pattern 3B." This shift from diagnostic labels to dynamic data signatures represents perhaps the most significant evolution in critical care since the advent of mechanical ventilation.²

This review explores the theoretical foundations, practical applications, and future implications of computational phenotyping in critical care medicine, offering a roadmap for the next generation of intensivists navigating this data-rich therapeutic landscape.

The Limitations of Traditional Diagnostic Paradigms

The Static Nature of Conventional Diagnoses

Traditional critical care diagnoses suffer from fundamental limitations that computational phenotyping addresses:³

Temporal Rigidity: Diagnoses like ARDS or sepsis represent snapshots in time, failing to capture the dynamic evolution of pathophysiology. A patient may meet ARDS criteria at admission but demonstrate completely different respiratory mechanics 24 hours later.

Binary Classification: Most diagnoses impose artificial binary boundaries (ARDS vs. no ARDS) on what are inherently continuous physiological processes. The Berlin definition's mild/moderate/severe ARDS categories acknowledge this limitation but remain inadequately granular.⁴

Phenotypic Heterogeneity: Single diagnostic labels encompass vastly different pathophysiological processes. "Septic shock" includes patients with distributive, cardiogenic, and mixed shock patterns, each requiring fundamentally different therapeutic approaches.⁵

The Information Loss Problem

Traditional diagnostic approaches suffer from massive information loss. A patient generating 10,000+ data points daily is reduced to 3-5 diagnostic codes, discarding 99.9% of available physiological information. This reductionism may explain why many large-scale critical care trials show neutral or marginal benefits—treatments are applied to heterogeneous populations based on oversimplified classifications.⁶

Foundations of Computational Phenotyping

Defining the Computational Phenotype

A computational phenotype represents a patient's unique, multi-dimensional physiological state characterized through machine learning analysis of high-frequency, multi-modal data streams. Unlike traditional phenotypes based on observable characteristics, computational phenotypes emerge from pattern recognition in complex datasets that exceed human cognitive processing capabilities.⁷

Core Components

Data Integration: Computational phenotypes integrate multiple data streams:

• Continuous vital signs (heart rate variability, respiratory patterns, blood pressure dynamics)
• Laboratory trends (not just absolute values but rates of change and patterns)
• Medication responses (dosing requirements, effect trajectories)
• Mechanical ventilation parameters (compliance curves, flow-volume loops)
• Imaging biomarkers (lung recruitability, cardiac function indices)
• Genomic markers (when available)⁸

Temporal Dynamics: Unlike static diagnoses, computational phenotypes evolve continuously, capturing:

• Circadian variations in physiology
• Response patterns to interventions
• Recovery or deterioration trajectories
• Treatment resistance development⁹

Pattern Recognition: Advanced algorithms identify subtle patterns invisible to human clinicians:

• Hidden correlations between seemingly unrelated parameters
• Early warning signals preceding clinical deterioration
• Response signatures predicting treatment efficacy¹⁰

The Phenotype Library: A New Taxonomy of Critical Illness

Moving Beyond Disease Names

The phenotype library represents a fundamental reimagining of how we classify critically ill patients. Instead of traditional diagnostic categories, patients are characterized by their computational signatures:

Hemodynamic Phenotypes:

• "High-Variance Pressure Oscillator": Patients with significant beat-to-beat blood pressure variability suggesting autonomic dysfunction
• "Low-Reserve Preload Responder": Patients showing minimal stroke volume variation despite fluid responsiveness
• "Vasopressor-Resistant Distributor": Patients requiring escalating vasopressor doses with persistent low systemic vascular resistance¹¹

Respiratory Phenotypes:

• "Recruitable ARDS": High positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) responders with improved compliance
• "Non-Recruitable ARDS": Patients showing minimal recruitment with higher PEEP levels
• "Oscillatory Compliance Pattern": Patients with cyclic changes in respiratory system compliance¹²

Metabolic Phenotypes:

• "Rapid Glucose Oscillator": Patients with high glucose variability despite insulin therapy
• "Lactate Clearance Resistant": Patients with persistently elevated lactate despite adequate resuscitation
• "Hypermetabolic Trajectory": Patients with escalating caloric requirements and protein catabolism¹³

Clinical Pearl: The "Phenotype Drift" Phenomenon

Pearl: Patients don't maintain static phenotypes—they "drift" between computational categories as their condition evolves. Recognizing phenotype transitions often precedes clinical deterioration by 6-12 hours, providing critical early warning opportunities.

Clinical Application: Daily phenotype assessment should become as routine as morning rounds, with treatment algorithms automatically adjusting based on phenotype transitions.

Phenotype-Guided Therapy: Precision Medicine in Action

Beyond One-Size-Fits-All Protocols

Traditional ICU protocols apply uniform approaches to diagnostically similar patients. Computational phenotyping enables precision targeting:

Fluid Management Example:

• Traditional approach: All "septic shock" patients receive 30ml/kg crystalloid bolus
• Phenotype-guided approach:
  • "Preload-Responsive Compensated" phenotype: Aggressive fluid resuscitation
  • "Capillary-Leak Predominant" phenotype: Early vasopressor initiation with minimal fluids
  • "Mixed-Pattern Unstable" phenotype: Goal-directed therapy with continuous phenotype monitoring¹⁴

Ventilator Management:

• Traditional: ARDS patients receive low tidal volume ventilation
• Phenotype-guided:
  • "Recruitable" phenotype: Higher PEEP strategies
  • "Non-recruitable" phenotype: Lower PEEP with recruitment maneuvers
  • "Overdistension-Prone" phenotype: Ultra-protective ventilation strategies¹⁵

Clinical Hack: The "Phenotype Stack"

Hack: Layer multiple phenotypic assessments like a diagnostic stack:

1. Primary phenotype: Dominant pathophysiological pattern
2. Secondary phenotypes: Overlapping patterns requiring attention
3. Emerging phenotypes: Early signals of phenotypic transition
4. Resistance phenotypes: Patterns suggesting treatment failure

This multi-layered approach prevents tunnel vision and captures the full complexity of critical illness.

Implementation Strategies in Modern ICUs

Infrastructure Requirements

Data Architecture:

• High-frequency data capture (≥1 Hz for vital signs)
• Standardized data formats and timestamps
• Real-time processing capabilities
• Integration with electronic health records¹⁶

Clinical Workflow Integration:

• Automated phenotype classification algorithms
• Real-time alerts for phenotype transitions
• Decision support tools linking phenotypes to treatment recommendations
• Regular phenotype rounds incorporating computational insights¹⁷

Staff Training and Adoption

Education Priorities:

• Understanding pattern recognition principles
• Interpreting computational phenotype outputs
• Balancing algorithmic guidance with clinical judgment
• Managing uncertainty in dynamic phenotypic states¹⁸

Clinical Oyster: The "Black Box" Challenge

Oyster: The biggest implementation barrier isn't technical—it's psychological. Clinicians trained in pathophysiology-based reasoning struggle with pattern-based recommendations they can't mechanistically explain.

Solution: Develop "explainable AI" interfaces that provide both phenotypic classification and underlying physiological rationale. This bridges the gap between traditional clinical reasoning and computational insights.

Case Studies in Computational Phenotyping

Case 1: The Evolving Sepsis Patient

A 65-year-old patient presents with pneumonia and meets sepsis criteria. Traditional approach focuses on antimicrobials, fluid resuscitation, and vasopressor support based on the "sepsis" diagnosis.

Computational phenotype evolution:

• Hour 0-6: "Compensated Hyperdynamic" phenotype—high cardiac output, low systemic vascular resistance
• Hour 6-18: Transition to "Myocardial Depression Predominant" phenotype—declining cardiac index despite fluid loading
• Hour 18-36: "Multi-organ Dysregulation" phenotype—simultaneous cardiac, renal, and hepatic dysfunction patterns

Phenotype-guided interventions:

• Early dobutamine for myocardial depression pattern
• Renal replacement therapy timing based on renal phenotype deterioration
• Hepatic support guided by metabolic phenotype evolution¹⁹

Case 2: The ARDS Phenotype Spectrum

Two patients with identical ARDS severity (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio of 150) demonstrate vastly different computational phenotypes:

Patient A: "Recruitable Inflammatory"

• High PEEP responsiveness
• Elevated inflammatory markers with specific cytokine patterns
• Rapid response to corticosteroids

Patient B: "Fibroproliferative Non-recruitable"

• Minimal PEEP response
• Elevated fibroblast activation markers
• Poor steroid response, potential benefit from antifibrotic therapy²⁰

Technology Integration and Data Science

Machine Learning Approaches

Unsupervised Learning:

• Clustering algorithms identify natural patient groupings
• Principal component analysis reveals dominant physiological patterns
• Hidden Markov models capture phenotypic transitions²¹

Supervised Learning:

• Predictive models link phenotypes to outcomes
• Treatment response algorithms optimize therapy selection
• Risk stratification based on phenotypic stability²²

Deep Learning:

• Convolutional neural networks analyze waveform patterns
• Recurrent neural networks capture temporal dependencies
• Transformer architectures integrate multi-modal data streams²³

Clinical Hack: The "Digital Twin" Approach

Hack: Create computational "digital twins" of critically ill patients—real-time models that simulate physiological responses to interventions. Test therapeutic strategies on the digital twin before implementing them on the actual patient.

Implementation: Use continuous data streams to update patient-specific physiological models, enabling personalized treatment simulation and optimization.

Pearls for Clinical Implementation

Pearl 1: Start Small, Think Big

Begin with single-organ phenotyping (e.g., respiratory mechanics patterns) before attempting comprehensive multi-organ computational phenotypes. Master the interpretation of simple patterns before advancing to complex multi-dimensional classifications.

Pearl 2: The "Phenotype Round"

Incorporate a daily "phenotype round" where the team reviews each patient's computational classification and any overnight transitions. This should complement, not replace, traditional bedside assessment.

Pearl 3: Pattern Stability vs. Transition States

Stable phenotypes suggest consistent therapeutic approaches, while transition states require enhanced monitoring and potential intervention adjustments. Learn to recognize the "phenotypic weather"—stable patterns vs. incoming transitions.

Pearl 4: The Human-AI Partnership

Computational phenotypes inform but don't replace clinical judgment. Use phenotypic data as an additional "consultant" providing insights invisible to human observation, but always integrate with bedside clinical assessment.

Challenges and Limitations

Technical Challenges

Data Quality: Computational phenotyping requires high-quality, standardized data. Poor data hygiene leads to unreliable phenotypic classifications.²⁴

Computational Complexity: Real-time phenotyping demands significant computational resources and sophisticated algorithms not readily available in all ICU settings.²⁵

Integration Barriers: Most ICU information systems weren't designed for high-frequency data analysis and real-time pattern recognition.²⁶

Clinical Challenges

Validation Requirements: Computational phenotypes require extensive validation across diverse patient populations before clinical implementation.²⁷

Clinician Acceptance: Healthcare providers may resist paradigm shifts that challenge traditional diagnostic frameworks and clinical reasoning patterns.²⁸

Regulatory Considerations: Novel phenotyping approaches require careful consideration of regulatory requirements and patient safety protocols.²⁹

Oyster: The "Phenotype Paradox"

Oyster: The more sophisticated our phenotyping becomes, the more we risk losing the forest for the trees. Excessive focus on computational patterns may distract from fundamental bedside clinical skills.

Resolution: Maintain computational phenotyping as an enhancement to, not replacement for, traditional clinical assessment. The goal is augmented intelligence, not artificial replacement.

Future Directions and Research Opportunities

Emerging Technologies

Internet of Things (IoT) Integration: Wearable sensors and smart medical devices will provide continuous, high-resolution physiological monitoring, enabling more sophisticated phenotypic characterization.³⁰

Artificial Intelligence Advancement: Next-generation AI systems will identify increasingly subtle patterns and predict phenotypic transitions with greater accuracy and earlier warning.³¹

Multi-omics Integration: Incorporation of genomic, proteomic, and metabolomic data will create more comprehensive computational phenotypes linking molecular mechanisms to physiological patterns.³²

Research Priorities

Phenotype Validation Studies: Large-scale, multi-center studies validating computational phenotype classifications across diverse patient populations and clinical settings.

Therapeutic Response Prediction: Research investigating whether phenotype-guided therapy improves outcomes compared to traditional diagnosis-based approaches.

Phenotype Stability Analysis: Understanding the temporal dynamics of phenotypic transitions and their relationship to clinical interventions and outcomes.³³

Practical Implementation Guide

Phase 1: Foundation Building (Months 1-6)

• Establish high-quality data capture systems
• Train staff in computational phenotyping concepts
• Implement basic pattern recognition for single-organ systems
• Develop quality metrics for phenotypic classification accuracy

Phase 2: Integration (Months 6-12)

• Deploy multi-organ phenotyping algorithms
• Integrate phenotypic data into clinical workflows
• Establish phenotype-guided treatment protocols
• Monitor clinical outcomes and algorithm performance

Phase 3: Optimization (Months 12-24)

• Refine algorithms based on clinical experience
• Expand phenotypic library with institution-specific patterns
• Develop predictive models for phenotype transitions
• Scale implementation across multiple ICU units³⁴

Clinical Pearls and Practical Tips

Pearl: The "Pattern Recognition Mindset"

Train your eye to see patterns in routine ICU data. Before computational algorithms, develop personal pattern recognition skills by regularly examining:

• Heart rate variability trends over 24-hour periods
• Ventilator pressure-volume loop evolution
• Medication dose trajectory patterns
• Laboratory value oscillations and trends

Hack: The "Data Story" Approach

For each patient, construct a "data story"—a narrative explaining their computational phenotype evolution. This helps bridge traditional clinical reasoning with computational insights and improves team understanding.

Oyster: Avoiding "Algorithm Dependency"

Risk: Over-reliance on computational phenotypes may atrophy clinical reasoning skills. Mitigation: Always correlate computational findings with bedside assessment. Use phenotypes to enhance, not replace, clinical judgment.

Economic and Healthcare System Implications

Cost-Effectiveness Considerations

Computational phenotyping may reduce healthcare costs through:

• More precise therapeutic targeting reducing unnecessary interventions
• Earlier recognition of treatment failure enabling timely strategy changes
• Improved resource allocation based on predicted outcomes
• Reduced length of stay through optimized treatment selection³⁵

Implementation Economics

Initial costs include:

• Information technology infrastructure upgrades
• Staff training and education programs
• Algorithm development and validation
• Quality assurance and monitoring systems³⁶

Ethical Considerations

Patient Privacy and Data Security

Computational phenotyping requires extensive patient data collection and analysis, raising important privacy considerations:

• Secure data transmission and storage protocols
• Patient consent for algorithmic analysis
• Data ownership and sharing agreements
• Protection against discriminatory use of phenotypic information³⁷

Algorithmic Bias and Equity

Computational phenotypes must be validated across diverse populations to prevent:

• Racial and ethnic bias in phenotypic classifications
• Socioeconomic disparities in algorithm performance
• Gender-based differences in pattern recognition
• Age-related phenotypic classification biases³⁸

The End of Diagnoses: A Future Vision

Scenario: ICU 2035

Imagine an ICU where traditional diagnostic labels have largely disappeared. Patients are characterized by their real-time computational signatures:

Morning Rounds, ICU 2035: "Patient in Bed 3 demonstrates a 'Transitional Hemodynamic Phenotype 4A→4B' with emerging 'Renal Dysregulation Pattern C.' Algorithm recommends shifting from phenotype-optimized fluid strategy to early renal replacement therapy with hemodynamic support Pattern B protocol."

Treatment Selection: Instead of "sepsis bundles," physicians select from phenotype-optimized treatment algorithms automatically adjusted based on real-time pattern recognition and predicted response probabilities.

The Diagnostic-Free ICU

In this future paradigm:

• Treatments are selected based on physiological patterns, not diagnostic labels
• Prognosis is determined by phenotypic trajectory analysis, not disease severity scores
• Clinical trials are conducted in phenotypically defined populations, dramatically improving treatment effect detection
• Medical education focuses on pattern recognition and computational interpretation rather than memorizing diagnostic criteria³⁹

Challenges in Translation to Clinical Practice

The Validation Valley

Challenge: Computational phenotypes must demonstrate clinical utility beyond traditional approaches. This requires large-scale randomized controlled trials comparing phenotype-guided vs. diagnosis-guided therapy.

Solution: Develop pragmatic trial designs that can be implemented across multiple institutions with varying technological capabilities.⁴⁰

Clinician Training and Acceptance

Challenge: ICU physicians trained in pathophysiology-based reasoning must adapt to pattern-based decision-making.

Solution: Develop educational programs that demonstrate how computational phenotypes enhance rather than replace traditional clinical reasoning.⁴¹

Research Methodologies for Computational Phenotyping

Study Design Considerations

Retrospective Discovery Studies: Use existing ICU databases to identify computational phenotypes and validate their clinical relevance.

Prospective Validation Studies: Test identified phenotypes in real-time clinical settings to assess practical utility and accuracy.

Randomized Controlled Trials: Compare outcomes between phenotype-guided and traditional diagnosis-guided therapy approaches.⁴²

Statistical Considerations

Multiple Comparisons: Computational phenotyping generates numerous statistical comparisons requiring appropriate correction methods.

Temporal Dependencies: Standard statistical methods may be inadequate for analyzing time-series phenotypic data.

Missing Data: Real-world ICU data contains significant missing values requiring sophisticated imputation strategies.⁴³

Quality Metrics and Performance Assessment

Phenotype Classification Accuracy

Internal Validation: Assess algorithm performance using cross-validation techniques within development datasets.

External Validation: Test phenotype classifications across different institutions and patient populations.

Clinical Validation: Correlate computational phenotypes with clinical outcomes and treatment responses.⁴⁴

Clinical Utility Metrics

Outcome Prediction: Assess whether phenotype-based predictions outperform traditional severity scores.

Treatment Selection: Evaluate whether phenotype-guided therapy improves patient outcomes compared to standard approaches.

Resource Utilization: Measure the impact of phenotype-guided care on ICU length of stay, resource consumption, and healthcare costs.⁴⁵

Conclusion

The computational phenotype represents a paradigm shift of unprecedented magnitude in critical care medicine. By moving beyond static diagnostic labels to dynamic, data-driven patient characterization, we unlock the potential for truly personalized critical care medicine. The vision of an ICU where treatments are selected based on real-time physiological patterns rather than century-old diagnostic categories is not science fiction—it is an emerging reality.

The successful implementation of computational phenotyping requires careful attention to data quality, clinical validation, staff education, and ethical considerations. The challenges are significant, but the potential benefits—improved outcomes, reduced costs, and genuinely personalized medicine—justify the substantial effort required.

For the next generation of intensivists, comfort with computational phenotyping will be as essential as traditional clinical skills. The ICU of the future will be a place where human clinical expertise is amplified by computational insights, creating a synergy that transcends what either could achieve alone.

The journey from diagnosis-based to phenotype-guided critical care has begun. The question is not whether this transformation will occur, but how quickly we can implement it safely and effectively to benefit our most vulnerable patients.

---

References

1. 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.

2. Calfee CS, Delucchi K, Parsons PE, et al. Subphenotypes in acute respiratory distress syndrome: latent class analysis of data from two randomised controlled trials. Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2(8):611-620.

3. Prescott HC, Calfee CS, Thompson BT, et al. Toward smarter lumping and smarter splitting: rethinking strategies for sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome clinical trial design. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194(2):147-155.

4. ARDS Definition Task Force, Ranieri VM, Rubenfeld GD, et al. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin Definition. JAMA. 2012;307(23):2526-2533.

5. 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.

6. Iwashyna TJ, Burke JF, Sussman JB, et al. Implications of heterogeneity of treatment effect for reporting and analysis of randomized trials in critical care. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;192(9):1045-1051.

7. Denny JC, Ritchie MD, Basford MA, et al. PheWAS: demonstrating the feasibility of a phenome-wide association study. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(9):1205-1210.

8. Churpek MM, Yuen TC, Winslow C, et al. Multicenter comparison of machine learning methods and conventional regression for predicting clinical deterioration on the wards. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(2):368-374.

9. Ghassemi M, Celi LA, Stone DJ. State of the art review: the data revolution in critical care. Crit Care. 2015;19:118.

10. Kamaleswaran R, Akbilgic O, Hallman MA, et al. Applying artificial intelligence to identify physiomarkers predicting severe sepsis in the PICU. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2018;19(10):e495-e503.

11. Hatib F, Jian Z, Buddi S, et al. Machine-learning algorithm to predict hypotension based on high-fidelity arterial pressure waveform analysis. Anesthesiology. 2018;129(4):663-674.

12. Goligher EC, Hodgson CL, Adhikari NKJ, et al. Lung recruitment maneuvers for adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017;14(Supplement_4):S304-S311.

13. Casaer MP, Mesotten D, Hermans G, et al. Early versus late parenteral nutrition in critically ill adults. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(6):506-517.

14. PRISM Investigators, Rowan KM, Angus DC, et al. Early, goal-directed therapy for septic shock—a patient-level meta-analysis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(23):2223-2234.

15. Brower RG, Matthay MA, Morris A, et al. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(18):1301-1308.

16. Celi LA, Mark RG, Stone DJ, et al. "Big data" in the intensive care unit. Closing the data loop. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;187(11):1157-1160.

17. Rajkomar A, Dean J, Kohane I. Machine learning in medicine. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(14):1347-1358.

18. Cabitza F, Rasoini R, Gensini GF. Unintended consequences of machine learning in medicine. JAMA. 2017;318(6):517-518.

19. Rhee C, Dantes R, Epstein L, et al. Incidence and trends of sepsis in US hospitals using clinical vs claims data, 2009-2014. JAMA. 2017;318(13):1241-1249.

20. Bos LDJ, Schouten LR, van Vught LA, et al. Identification and validation of distinct biological phenotypes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome by cluster analysis. Thorax. 2017;72(10):876-883.

21. Lipton ZC, Kale DC, Elkan C, et al. Learning to diagnose with LSTM recurrent neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.03677. 2015.

22. Rajpurkar P, Irvin J, Zhu K, et al. CheXNet: Radiologist-level pneumonia detection on chest X-rays with deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05225. 2017.

23. Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, et al. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems. 2017;30.

24. Komorowski M, Celi LA, Badawi O, et al. The Artificial Intelligence Clinician learns optimal treatment strategies for sepsis in intensive care. Nat Med. 2018;24(11):1716-1720.

25. Johnson AEW, Pollard TJ, Shen L, et al. MIMIC-III, a freely accessible critical care database. Sci Data. 2016;3:160035.

26. Goldstein BA, Navar AM, Pencina MJ, et al. Opportunities and challenges in developing risk prediction models with electronic health records data: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24(1):198-208.

27. Liu VX, Fielding-Singh V, Greene JD, et al. The timing of early antibiotics and hospital mortality in sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;196(7):856-863.

28. Shortliffe EH, Sepúlveda MJ. Clinical decision support in the era of artificial intelligence. JAMA. 2018;320(21):2199-2200.

29. He J, Baxter SL, Xu J, et al. The practical implementation of artificial intelligence technologies in medicine. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):30-36.

30. Hravnak M, Chen L, Dubrawski A, et al. Real alerts and artifact in the intensive care unit: observational evaluation of a physiological monitor. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(11):2461-2466.

31. Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):44-56.

32. Basu RK, Standage SW, Cvijanovich NZ, et al. Identification of candidate serum biomarkers for severe septic shock-associated kidney injury via microarray. Crit Care. 2011;15(6):R273.

33. Wong A, Otles E, Donnelly JP, et al. External validation of a widely implemented proprietary sepsis prediction model in hospitalized patients. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(8):1065-1070.

34. Sendak MP, Ratliff W, Sarro D, et al. Real-world integration of a sepsis deep learning technology into routine clinical care: implementation study. JMIR Med Inform. 2020;8(7):e15182.

35. Ferretti S, Rynkiewicz MJ, Dexheimer JW, et al. Development of a machine learning model to predict mortality risk in patients with suspected sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2021;49(11):1903-1912.

36. Shah NH, Milstein A, Bagley Ph D. Making machine learning models clinically useful. JAMA. 2019;322(14):1351-1352.

37. Price WN, Cohen IG. Privacy in the age of medical big data. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):37-43.

38. Obermeyer Z, Powers B, Vogeli C, et al. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science. 2019;366(6464):447-453.

39. Beam AL, Kohane IS. Big data and machine learning in health care. JAMA. 2018;319(13):1317-1318.

40. Hemingway H, Croft P, Perel P, et al. Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 1: a framework for researching clinical outcomes. BMJ. 2013;346:e5595.

41. Char DS, Shah NH, Magnus D. Implementing machine learning in health care—addressing ethical challenges. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(11):981-983.

42. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, et al. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. BMJ. 2015;350:g7594.

43. Van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45(3):1-67.

44. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology. 2010;21(1):128-138.

45. Vickers AJ, Van Calster B, Steyerberg EW. Net benefit approaches to the evaluation of prediction models, molecular markers, and diagnostic tests. BMJ. 2016;352:i6.

---

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the critical care community for their ongoing commitment to advancing patient care through innovative approaches to clinical medicine.