ArticleClinical cardiology2026
In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Detection Performance Analysis and Comparison on Effective Feature Selection.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2026. 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.
- In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Detection Performance Analysis and Comparison on Effective Feature Selection.Clinical cardiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHow to reduce the occurrence of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA), screen potential IHCA patients, and advance the treatment of IHCA are urgent problems to be solved in clinic. In this study, we tried to develop a model to predict whether patients will develop IHCA based on the data of patients who have just been admitted to hospital and evaluate the influence of different feature selection methods on machine learning (ML) models. METHODS AND
resultsA total of 25 149 patients were included in the study; 320 developed IHCA. We chose three feature selection methods (Student's t-test and Chi-square test, regression analysis and correlation analysis) and four ML models (AdaBoost, XGBoost, Random Forest, and Logistic Regression). Each ML model was trained and evaluated using raw and feature-selected data; as a result, we got 16 models. AUROC, AUPRC, accuracy, recall, precision, and specificity are used to evaluate the model. The XGBoost model has the best performance with an AUROC of 0.987 (95% CI 0.984-0.988), an AUPRC of 0.763, an accuracy of 0.992, a recall of 0.695, a precision of 0.723, and a specificity of 0.996. The most significant predictors are age, albumin, sinus arrhythmia, activated partial thromboplastin time, and protein.
conclusionsDifferent feature selection methods have different effects on different ML models. The predictive model developed using the XGBoost algorithm is the best predictor of whether patients will develop IHCA.
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.