ArticleResuscitation plus2024
Machine learning prediction of refractory ventricular fibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest using features available to EMS.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of Machine Learning for Patients With Cardiac Arrest: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Prediction of shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: external validation of an ECG-based approach.Resuscitation · 2026Article
- Use of artificial intelligence in the out-of-hospital care settings: a scoping review.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Article
- Mapping artificial intelligence models in emergency medicine: A scoping review on artificial intelligence performance in emergency care and education.Turkish journal of emergency medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation (VF) or ventricular tachycardia (VT) is a treatment challenge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). This study aimed to develop and validate machine learning models that could be implemented by emergency medical services (EMS) to predict refractory VF/VT in OHCA patients. Methods: This was a retrospective study examining adult non-traumatic OHCA patients brought into the emergency department by Singapore EMS from the Pan-Asian Resuscitation Outcomes Study (PAROS) registry. Data from April 2010 to March 2020 were extracted for this study. Refractory VF/VT was defined as VF/VT persisting or recurring after at least one shock. Features were selected based on expert clinical opinion and availability to dispatch prior to arrival at scene. Multivariable logistic regression (MVR), LASSO and random forest (RF) models were investigated. Model performance was evaluated using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) area under curve (AUC) analysis and calibration plots. Results: 20,713 patients were included in this study, of which 860 (4.1%) fulfilled the criteria for refractory VF/VT. All models performed comparably and were moderately well-calibrated. ROC-AUC were 0.732 (95% CI, 0.695 - 0.769) for MVR, 0.738 (95% CI, 0.701 - 0.774) for LASSO, and 0.731 (95% CI, 0.690 - 0.773) for RF. The shared important predictors across all models included male gender and public location. Conclusion: The machine learning models developed have potential clinical utility to improve outcomes in cases of refractory VF/VT OHCA. Prediction of refractory VF/VT prior to arrival at patient's side may allow for increased options for intervention both by EMS and tertiary care centres.
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.