ArticleResuscitation2026
Prediction of neurological outcome after pediatric cardiac arrest using heart rate variability and machine learning.
Article in Resuscitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsHeart rate variability (HRV), a non-invasive measure of autonomic function, may offer prognostic value after pediatric cardiac arrest. We used machine learning models to determine whether HRV features within the first 24 h after return of spontaneous circulation can predict outcomes in children following cardiac arrest, and whether adding clinical cardiac arrest characteristics improves model performance.
methodsRetrospective study of children who received post-arrest care in the PICU at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia from 2020 to 2023. Thirty-six HRV features were extracted from ECG recordings and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) models were trained to predict unfavorable neurological outcome, defined as Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category 4-6 and an increase >1 from baseline. Models were evaluated by cross-validation across the entire 24-h period and within sequential 6-h epochs. Additional models included clinical arrest characteristics. Performance was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).
resultsOf the 75 patients who met inclusion criteria (median age 6.8 [IQR 10.4] years), 51% had an unfavorable outcome. Model considering HRV features and age achieved an AUROC of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.68-0.88). Top HRV predictors included standard deviation (SDNN), power at very low and low frequency bands, entropy, and fractal scaling. Performance was similar across the 6-h epochs (p's > 0.1). Adding cardiac arrest characteristics did not improve model performance (AUROC 0.83 [0.73-0.92], p > 0.41).
conclusionUsing machine learning, HRV features within 24 h after pediatric cardiac arrest predict unfavorable outcome with AUROC 0.8. Adding clinical variables did not improve model performance.
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.