Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33663222›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2021

Deep Neural Network Approach for Continuous ECG-Based Automated External Defibrillator Shock Advisory System During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.

Shirin Hajeb-M, Alicia Cascella, Matt Valentine, K H Chon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Current and Future Use of Artificial Intelligence in Electrocardiography.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shirin Hajeb-MBiomedical Engineering Department University of Connecticut Storrs CT.
Alicia CascellaDefibtech, LLC Guilford CT.
Matt ValentineDefibtech, LLC Guilford CT.
K H ChonBiomedical Engineering Department University of Connecticut Storrs CT.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Because chest compressions induce artifacts in the ECG, current automated external defibrillators instruct the user to stop cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) while an automated rhythm analysis is performed. It has been shown that minimizing interruptions in CPR increases the chance of survival. Methods and Results The objective of this study was to apply a deep-learning algorithm using convolutional layers, residual networks, and bidirectional long short-term memory method to classify shockable versus nonshockable rhythms in the presence and absence of CPR artifact. Forty subjects' data from Physionet with 1131 shockable and 2741 nonshockable samples contaminated with 43 different CPR artifacts that were acquired from a commercial automated external defibrillator during asystole were used. We had separate data as train and test sets. Using our deep neural network model, the sensitivity and specificity of the shock versus no-shock decision for the entire data set over the 4-fold cross-validation sets were 95.21% and 86.03%, respectively. This result was based on the training and testing of the model using ECG data in both the presence and the absence of CPR artifact. For ECG without CPR artifact, the sensitivity was 99.04% and the specificity was 95.2%. A sensitivity of 94.21% and a specificity of 86.14% were obtained for ECG with CPR artifact. In addition to 4-fold cross-validation sets, we also examined leave-one-subject-out validation. The sensitivity and specificity for the case of leave-one-subject-out validation were 92.71% and 97.6%, respectively. Conclusions The proposed trained model can make shock versus nonshock decision in automated external defibrillators, regardless of CPR status. The results meet the American Heart Association's sensitivity requirement (>90%).

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDeep LearningDefibrillatorsNeural Networks, ComputerArtifactsCardiopulmonary ResuscitationElectrocardiographyHumansOut-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrestautomated external defibrillatorcardiopulmonary resuscitation–contaminated ECGdeep neural networklong short‐term memoryout‐of‐hospital cardiac arrestresidual blockshock advisory system

Identifiers

PMID33663222
PMCPMC8174215

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.