ArticleFrontiers in neurology2026
Early prediction of in-hospital acute brain injury following cardiac arrest using machine learning: development and external validation.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Neurological injury is common after cardiac arrest (CA), but early and accurate assessment remains challenging. Existing evaluation methods often lack sensitivity and specificity. This study aims to develop and validate an interpretable machine learning model for early and reliable assessment of brain injury and its prognostic relevance in ICU patients. Methods: In this study, we analyzed 1,419 CA patients from the MIMIC-IV database, randomly split into training and validation cohorts. Six machine learning (ML) algorithms-logistic regression (LR), XGBoost, artificial neural network (ANN), random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), and k-nearest neighbors (KNN) were developed and evaluated. The top-performing model was interpreted using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), identifying eight key predictors of brain injury. Finally, clinical data from cardiac arrest patients at our hospital were collected for external validation to assess the model's generalizability and practical utility in an ICU setting. Results: Among the six machine learning models, the Random Forest model achieved the highest numerical performance in both the internal test and external validation cohorts. In the internal test cohort, Random Forest achieved an ACC of 88.7%, sensitivity of 80.0%, specificity of 90.6%, F1 score of 0.714, NPV of 95.5%, PPV of 64.5%, and AUC of 0.901. In the external validation cohort, Random Forest achieved an ACC of 88.8%, sensitivity of 77.8%, specificity of 90.8%, F1 score of 0.677, NPV of 95.8%, PPV of 60.0%, and AUC of 0.889. SHAP analysis identified eight influential predictors: age, hemoglobin, OASIS, temperature, blood urea nitrogen, white blood cell count, non-invasive diastolic pressure, and non-invasive systolic pressure. Conclusion: Machine learning offers strong potential for early prediction of acute brain injury in in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. Our interpretable model addresses the "black box" concern by providing transparent insights into key predictive features.
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.