Evidence Hub

The use of machine learning based models to predict the severity of community acquired pneumonia in hospitalised patients: A systematic review

Caitlin Lythgoe, David Oliver Hamilton, BW Johnston, Sandra Ortega-Martorell, I. Olier, Ingeborg D. Welters

Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 2025

351,365 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Background: Community acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common cause of hospital admission. CAP carries significant risk of adverse outcomes including organ dysfunction, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death. Earlier admission to ICU for those with severe CAP is associated with better outcomes. Traditional prediction models are used in clinical practice to predict the severity of CAP. However, accuracy of predicting severity may be improved by using machine learning (ML) based models with added advantages of automation and speed. This systematic review evaluates the evidence base of ML-prediction tools in predicting CAP severity. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed were systematically searched for studies that used ML-based models to predict mortality and/or ICU admission in CAP patients, where a performance metric was reported. Results: 11 papers including a total of 351,365 CAP patients were included. All papers predicted severity and four predicted ICU admission. Most papers applied multiple ML algorithms to datasets and derived area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.98 at best performance and 0.57 at worst, with a mixed performance against traditional prediction tools. Conclusion: Although ML models showed good performance at predicting CAP severity, the variables selected for inclusion in each model varied significantly which limited comparisons between models and there was a lack of reproducible data, limiting validity. Future research…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 351,365 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free