ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2022
A machine learning approach for modeling decisions in the out of hospital cardiac arrest care workflow.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of Machine Learning for Patients With Cardiac Arrest: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in resuscitation: a scoping review.Resuscitation plus · 2025Review
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Development and validation of machine learning-based prediction model for outcome of cardiac arrest in intensive care units.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Application of multi-feature-based machine learning models to predict neurological outcomes of cardiac arrest.Resuscitation plus · 2024Review
- Artificial intelligence to support out-of-hospital cardiac arrest care: A scoping review.Resuscitation plus · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA growing body of research has shown that machine learning (ML) can be a useful tool to predict how different variable combinations affect out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survival outcomes. However, there remain significant research gaps on the utilization of ML models for decision-making and their impact on survival outcomes. The purpose of this study was to develop ML models that effectively predict hospital's practice to perform coronary angiography (CA) in adult patients after OHCA and subsequent neurologic outcomes.
methodsWe utilized all (N = 2398) patients treated by the Chicago Fire Department Emergency Medical Services included in the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) between 2013 and 2018 who survived to hospital admission to develop, test, and analyze ML models for decisions after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and patient survival. ML classification models, including the Embedded Fully Convolutional Network (EFCN) model, were compared based on their ability to predict post-ROSC decisions and survival.
resultsThe EFCN classification model achieved the best results across tested ML algorithms. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for CA and Survival were 0.908 and 0.896 respectively. Through cohort analyses, our model predicts that 18.3% (CI 16.4-20.2) of patients should receive a CA that did not originally, and 30.1% (CI 28.5-31.7) of these would experience improved survival outcomes.
conclusionML modeling effectively predicted hospital decisions and neurologic outcomes. ML modeling may serve as a quality improvement tool to inform system level OHCA policies and treatment protocols.
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.