Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39669409›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024

Development and validation of prediction models for death within 6 months after cardiac arrest.

Jianping Lu, Yuqi Zeng, Nan Lin, Qinyong Ye

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Jianping LuDepartment of Neurology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
Yuqi ZengDepartment of Neurology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
Nan LinDepartment of Geriatrics, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
Qinyong YeDepartment of Neurology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Even in patients with a successful return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), outcomes after cardiac arrest (CA) remain poor, with some eventually succumbing after several months of treatment. There is a need for early assessment of outcomes in patients with ROSC after CA. Therefore, we developed three models for predicting death within 6 months after CA using early post-arrest factors, performed external validation, and compared their efficiency. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, 199 patients aged 18-80 years who experienced either in-hospital cardiac arrest or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and achieved ROSC were included as the training set. Patients were divided into an "alive" group (95 cases) and a "dead" group (104 cases) according to their survival status 6 months after CA. Demographic data, medical history, and laboratory results were collected. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify risk factors. A risk prediction model was constructed using random forest methods, support vector machine (SVM), and a nomogram based on factors with Results: Duration of cardiac arrest, lactate level after ROSC, secondary infections, length of hospital stay, and ventilator support were the top five risk factors for death within 6 months after CA ( Conclusions: The prediction model established by early post-arrest factors performed well, which can aid in evaluating prognosis within 6 months after cardiac arrest. The predictive model constructed using random forest methods exhibited better predictive efficacy.

Indexed as

cardiac arrestmachine learningprediction modelprognosisreturn of spontaneous circulation

Identifiers

PMID39669409
PMCPMC11634882

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.