Back

The Causal Artificial Intelligence Clinician for early haemodynamic management of septic shock in ICU

Angelotti, G.; Azzimonti, L.; Cecconi, M.; Zaffalon, M.

2026-07-09 health informatics
10.64898/2026.07.06.26357375 medRxiv
Show abstract

Introduction: Standardizing fluid and vasopressor resuscitation in sep- tic shock is challenging due to patient heterogeneity. We trained a causal model to identify optimal dosing during the first six hours of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Methods: Graphical causal inference models were applied to estimate het- erogeneous treatment effects. Grounding models in expert clinical knowl- edge minimizes bias from spurious correlations to generate robust, contextu- ally meaningful recommendations. Our model was trained on 1,702 MIMIC database admissions and externally validated on 1,434 eICU admissions. Pri- mary outcomes were in-hospital survival and 24-hour clinical improvement (SOFA score reduction of two points or more). Findings: The cohort comprised 3,136 participants (median age 65 years [IQR 53-75]; 42.7% female). Deviation from vasopressor recommendations was associated with increased in-hospital mortality (median OR 5.61, 95% CI 5.44-5.78) and failed clinical improvement (median OR 6.33, 95% CI 6.17-6.50). Fluid deviations yielded corresponding median ORs of 1.02 (95% CI 1.02-1.02) and 1.14 (95% CI 1.14-1.14). In external validation, the model achieved a median survival AUROC of 0.73 (95% CI 0.69-0.77) and clini- cal improvement AUROC of 0.69 (95% CI 0.66-0.72), matching predictive baselines. Treatment effects were heterogeneous: optimal fluids increased survival by up to 4% in low-severity subgroups, while vasopressor responses varied from 0.5% to 17% across acute severity levels. Sensitivity analyses across 36 scenarios confirmed primary associations in 33 cases (91.7%). Interpretation: Recommendations from expert-grounded causal models correlate with improved septic shock outcomes in external validation, cap- turing significant heterogeneity in patient response.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.