ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2023
Machine learning to predict in-hospital cardiac arrest from patients presenting to the emergency department.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Application of Machine Learning for Patients With Cardiac Arrest: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Use of artificial intelligence in predicting in-hospital cardiac and respiratory arrest in an acute care environment-implications for clinical practice.Frontiers in medical technology · 2025Pooled it
- Grouping of Emergency Department-based Cardiac Arrest Patients According to Clinical Features to Assess Patient Outcomes.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Enhancing Clinical Cardiac Care: Predicting In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest With Machine Learning.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Machine Learning Models for Predicting in-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Comparative Analysis with Logistic Regression.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Characteristics, Outcome and Prognostic Factors of Patients with Emergency Department Cardiac Arrest: A 14-Year Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Drinking from the Holy Grail-Does a Perfect Triage System Exist? And Where to Look for It?Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Use of Artificial Intelligence in Triage in Hospital Emergency Departments: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2024Article
- Development of early prediction model of in-hospital cardiac arrest based on laboratory parameters.Biomedical engineering online · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in the emergency department (ED) is not uncommon but often fatal. Using the machine learning (ML) approach, we sought to predict ED-based IHCA (EDCA) in patients presenting to the ED based on triage data. We retrieved 733,398 ED records from a tertiary teaching hospital over a 7 year period (Jan. 1, 2009-Dec. 31, 2015). We included only adult patients (≥ 18 y) and excluded cases presenting as out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Primary outcome (EDCA) was identified via a resuscitation code. Patient demographics, triage data, and structured chief complaints (CCs), were extracted. Stratified split was used to divide the dataset into the training and testing cohort at a 3-to-1 ratio. Three supervised ML models were trained and performances were evaluated and compared to the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) and logistic regression (LR) model by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). We included 316,465 adult ED records for analysis. Of them, 636 (0.2%) developed EDCA. Of the constructed ML models, Random Forest outperformed the others with the best AUC result (0.931, 95% CI 0.911-0.949), followed by Gradient Boosting (0.930, 95% CI 0.909-0.948) and Extra Trees classifier (0.915, 95% CI 0.892-0.936). Although the differences between each of ML models and LR (AUC: 0.905, 95% CI 0.882-0.926) were not significant, all constructed ML models performed significantly better than using the NEWS2 scoring system (AUC 0.678, 95% CI 0.635-0.722). Our ML models showed excellent discriminatory performance to identify EDCA based only on the triage information. This ML approach has the potential to reduce unexpected resuscitation events if successfully implemented in the ED information system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36335518What 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.