ArticleRoyal Society open science2021
Machine learning and feature engineering for predicting pulse presence during chest compressions.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Closed-loop and Artificial intelligence guided cardiopulmonary resuscitation using real-time physiological signals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Prediction of Shock-Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation During Resuscitation of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.Circulation · 2023Trial
- Key physiological indicators and technological trends in physiology-directed cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A narrative review.Resuscitation plus · 2026Review
- Implications of an individualized resuscitation strategy using continuous rhythm and physiologic status assessment during ongoing CPR.Resuscitation · 2025Article
- Machine learning innovations in CPR: a comprehensive survey on enhanced resuscitation techniques.Artificial intelligence review · 2025Article
- A review of lightweight convolutional neural networks for ultrasound signal classification.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence to support out-of-hospital cardiac arrest care: A scoping review.Resuscitation plus · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence and machine learning in prehospital emergency care: A scoping review.iScience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current resuscitation protocols require pausing chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to check for a pulse. However, pausing CPR when a patient is pulseless can worsen patient outcomes. Our objective was to design and evaluate an ECG-based algorithm that predicts pulse presence with or without CPR. We evaluated 383 patients being treated for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with real-time ECG, impedance and audio recordings. Paired ECG segments having an organized rhythm immediately preceding a pulse check (during CPR) and during the pulse check (without CPR) were extracted. Patients were randomly divided into 60% training and 40% test groups. From training data, we developed an algorithm to predict the clinical pulse presence based on the wavelet transform of the bandpass-filtered ECG. Principal component analysis was used to reduce dimensionality, and we then trained a linear discriminant model using three principal component modes as input features. Overall, 38% (351/912) of checks had a spontaneous pulse. AUCs for predicting pulse presence with and without CPR on test data were 0.84 (95% CI (0.80, 0.88)) and 0.89 (95% CI (0.86, 0.92)), respectively. This ECG-based algorithm demonstrates potential to improve resuscitation by predicting the presence of a spontaneous pulse without pausing CPR with moderate accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.