ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Machine learning-based early detection of abnormal heart rate in critically ill patients: a real-world clinical dataset study with automated alert system integration.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are a leading global health challenge, particularly in resource-constrained settings where delayed diagnosis worsens outcomes. Abnormal heart rate (tachycardia/bradycardia) is a modifiable, independent risk factor that benefits from early, automated detection. Methods: We used a large real-world dataset from Hospital Santa Maria, Lisbon (23,122 patients, January 2019-November 2021, spanning the COVID-19 period). Two operational outcome definitions were evaluated: (i) an interquartile-range (IQR)-based, patient-specific definition, used to compare four classifiers (Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors, Random Forest, Naive Bayes), and (ii) standard clinical thresholds for tachycardia/bradycardia, applied to the best-performing model. Following CRISP-DM, models were trained and evaluated with patient-grouped, walk-forward time-series cross-validation to prevent patient-level data leakage. Results: Logistic Regression was the best-performing model. Under the IQR-based definition: AUROC 0.78, recall 85.4%, precision 66.1%, F1-score 74.5%. Under the clinically standard threshold-based definition: AUROC 0.81, recall 91.7%, precision 68.8%, F1-score 78.6%. Expanded metrics (event prevalence, false-positive rate, alert burden, calibration, confidence intervals) are reported. A prototype real-time e-mail alert system was demonstrated as a feasibility proof-of-concept and reviewed informally by two cardiovascular specialists. Discussion: Recall and AUROC alone do not establish clinical utility. Key limitations include the single-centre design, substantial missingness in ethnicity/diagnosis variables, the small clinician-evaluation sample (n = 2), and pandemic-period data collection. This work is presented as a methodologically strengthened proof-of-concept, with prospective, multi-site, multi-clinician external validation identified as the necessary next step.
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.