ReviewBiomedical engineering online2022
A review of progress and an advanced method for shock advice algorithms in automated external defibrillators.
Review in Biomedical engineering online, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Overcoming data scarcity in life-threatening arrhythmia detection through transfer learning.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- A High-Performance Anti-Noise Algorithm for Arrhythmia Recognition.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Diagnosis of sudden cardiac arrest using principal component analysis in automated external defibrillators.Scientific reports · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Shock advice algorithm plays a vital role in the detection of sudden cardiac arrests on electrocardiogram signals and hence, brings about survival improvement by delivering prompt defibrillation. The last decade has witnessed a surge of research efforts in racing for efficient shock advice algorithms, in this context. On one hand, it has been reported that the classification performance of traditional threshold-based methods has not complied with the American Heart Association recommendations. On the other hand, the rise of machine learning and deep learning-based counterparts is paving the new ways for the development of intelligent shock advice algorithms. In this paper, we firstly provide a comprehensive survey on the development of shock advice algorithms for rhythm analysis in automated external defibrillators. Shock advice algorithms are categorized into three groups based on the classification methods in which the detection performance is significantly improved by the use of machine learning and/or deep learning techniques instead of threshold-based approaches. Indeed, in threshold-based shock advice algorithms, a parameter is calculated as a threshold to distinguish shockable rhythms from non-shockable ones. In contrast, machine learning-based methods combine multiple parameters of conventional threshold-based approaches as a set of features to recognize sudden cardiac arrest. Noticeably, those features are possibly extracted from stand-alone ECGs, alternative signals using various decomposition techniques, or fully augmented ECG segments. Moreover, these signals can be also used directly as the input channels of deep learning-based shock advice algorithm designs. Then, we propose an advanced shock advice algorithm using a support vector machine classifier and a feature set extracted from a fully augmented ECG segment with its shockable and non-shockable signals. The relatively high detection performance of the proposed shock advice algorithm implies a potential application for the automated external defibrillator in the practical clinic environment. Finally, we outline several interesting yet challenging research problems for further investigation.
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.