ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2025
Machine Learning Models for Predicting in-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Comparative Analysis with Logistic Regression.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An Introduction to AI for Clinicians: Tutorial.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To develop and compare multiple machine learning (ML) algorithms with traditional logistic regression for predicting in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) using comprehensive electronic health record data, with the goal of improving early risk stratification beyond conventional early-warning scores and providing potential integration into hospital early warning systems for timely clinical intervention. Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective case-control study at a large tertiary medical center, including 800 IHCA cases and 3,464 controls. Candidate predictors comprised demographics, comorbidities, vital signs, and laboratory measurements. Five models-logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, XGBoost, and multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS)-were trained and validated. Performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and F1 score. Results: XGBoost yielded strong discrimination and the highest accuracy (AUC 0.909; accuracy 0.883), while random forest showed comparable discrimination (AUC 0.910) with slightly lower accuracy (0.876). Logistic regression performed robustly but lower than ML models (AUC 0.895; accuracy 0.876). ML models consistently identified clinically meaningful predictors-including blood urea nitrogen, heart rate, and pre-existing heart failure-offering insights beyond traditional regression. Conclusion: Integrating ML approaches with conventional regression enhances IHCA risk prediction by capturing non-linear relationships and interactions while retaining the interpretability of regression. These approaches could strengthen hospital early-warning systems, enabling earlier detection and intervention, and ultimately improving patient outcomes.
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.