The Causal Artificial Intelligence Clinician for early haemodynamic management of septic shock in ICU
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background
Standardizing fluid and vasopressor resuscitation in septic 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 heterogeneous treatment effects. Grounding models in expert clinical knowledge minimizes bias from spurious correlations to generate robust, contextually meaningful recommendations. Our model was trained on 1,702 MIMIC database admissions and externally validated on 1,434 eICU admissions. Primary 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 clinical 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, capturing significant heterogeneity in patient response.
Funding
None
Research In Context
Evidence before this study
Early haemodynamic management of septic shock, involving fluid resuscitation and vasopressor administration, is critical to prevent organ failure and improve survival. Standardized protocols, such as those from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, offer general guidance but may not fully account for the high clinical heterogeneity of patients. We searched PubMed for articles published up to July 2026 using the query: (“deep learning” OR “reinforcement learning” OR “machine learning” OR “artificial intelligence” OR “causal inference” OR “causal AI” OR “target trial*”) and (“sepsis” OR “septic shock”) and (“fluid*” OR “vasopressor*” OR “resuscitation”). Among the 219 relevant studies identified, 141 proposed a model. Of these, the majority (120) relied on associative statistical relationships, including supervised (90), unsupervised (16), or reinforcement (14) learning frameworks, which can generate recommendations susceptible to confounding and spurious correlations. The remaining models based on causal inference (21) primarily utilized potential outcomes (17) or target trial emulation methods (4); while methodologically rigorous, these approaches do not explicitly encode clinical and physiological knowledge into their design. Incorporating such domain expertise constrains the model’s parameter space to physiologically plausible relationships, generating treatment recommendations that are fundamentally aligned with established clinical workflows. In this study, we address this limitation by using structural causal models to integrate granular, physiology-grounded clinical reasoning into artificial intelligence models, supporting early haemodynamic management in septic shock.
Added value of this study
This study introduces the Causal Artificial Intelligence Clinician, a framework that utilizes Structural Causal Models (SCMs) to estimate the heterogeneous treatment effects of fluids and vasopressors during the first six hours of ICU admission. By integrating expert clinical consensus directly into the causal graph, the model controls for confounding using the back-door criterion, ensuring that recommendations are grounded in physiological principles rather than simple association. Trained on 1,702 admissions from the MIMIC-IV database and externally validated on 1,434 admissions from the eICU database, patients whose administered treatments aligned with the model’s recommendations showed higher rates of in-hospital survival and clinical improvement. Crucially, the causal model achieved predictive performance comparable to conventional predictive baselines while utilizing approximately 65% fewer variables, substantially reducing data requirements and computational complexity.
Implications of all the available evidence
Our findings suggest that expert-grounded causal AI can provide robust and transparent decision support for complex, heterogeneous conditions like septic shock. Because these models are leaner and require fewer variables than standard predictive systems, they are potentially easier to implement, scale, and deploy in diverse clinical settings, including low- and middle-income countries with limited digital infrastructure. Furthermore, the explicit nature of the causal graph offers a transparent, shared representation that clinicians can scrutinize and refine, fostering clinical trust while ensuring that healthcare professionals retain final decision-making authority.
