Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37031248›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Explainable artificial intelligence-based prediction of poor neurological outcome from head computed tomography in the immediate post-resuscitation phase.

Yasuyuki Kawai, Yohei Kogeichi, Koji Yamamoto, Keita Miyazaki, Hideki Asai, Hidetada Fukushima

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yasuyuki KawaiDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan. k6k6k@naramed-u.ac.jp.
Yohei KogeichiDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Koji YamamotoDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Keita MiyazakiDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Hideki AsaiDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Hidetada FukushimaDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Nara Medical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predicting poor neurological outcomes after resuscitation is important for planning treatment strategies. We constructed an explainable artificial intelligence-based prognostic model using head computed tomography (CT) scans taken immediately within 3 h of resuscitation from cardiac arrest and compared its predictive accuracy with that of previous methods using gray-to-white matter ratio (GWR). We included 321 consecutive patients admitted to our institution after resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest with circulation resumption over 6 years. A machine learning model using head CT images with transfer learning was used to predict the neurological outcomes at 1 month. These predictions were compared with the predictions of GWR for multiple regions of interest in head CT using receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-area under curve (AUC) and precision recall (PR)-AUC. The regions of focus were visualized using a heatmap. Both methods had similar ROC-AUCs, but the machine learning model had a higher PR-AUC (0.73 vs. 0.58). The machine learning-focused area of interest for classification was the boundary between gray and white matter, which overlapped with the area of focus when diagnosing hypoxic- ischemic brain injury. The machine learning model for predicting poor outcomes had superior accuracy to conventional methods and could help optimize treatment.

Indexed as

Heart ArrestHypoxia-Ischemia, BrainArtificial IntelligenceGray MatterHumansPrognosisRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID37031248
PMCPMC10082754
OpenAlexW4362720743

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.