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 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
15.2%
2
Critical Care Explorations
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.0%
3
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.3%
4
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.3%
5
Critical Care
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.6%
6
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
5.5%
7
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 18%
5.2%
50% of probability mass above
8
International Journal of Medical Informatics
26 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.1%
9
Nature Medicine
125 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.2%
10
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 39%
2.5%
11
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
12
JAMIA Open
42 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.9%
13
Frontiers in Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
Frontiers in Digital Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
16
CHEST
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
17
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
47 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
18
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 12%
1.0%
19
Physiological Measurement
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
20
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
21
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 32%
0.9%
22
Wellcome Open Research
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
Nature Machine Intelligence
70 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
24
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
25
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
26
Frontiers in Immunology
638 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.6%
27
JMIR Medical Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
28
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.6%
29
Critical Care Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
30
Life
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%