Prediction of Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department Based on Machine Learning and Sequential Characteristics: Model Development and Retrospective Clinical Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The development and application of clinical prediction models using machine learning in clinical decision support systems is attracting increasing attention. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to develop a prediction model for cardiac arrest in the emergency department (ED) using machine learning and sequential characteristics and to validate its clinical usefulness. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted with ED patients at a tertiary academic hospital who suffered cardiac arrest. To resolve the class imbalance problem, sampling was performed using propensity score matching. The data set was chronologically allocated to a development cohort (years 2013 to 2016) and a validation cohort (year 2017). We trained three machine learning algorithms with repeated 10-fold cross-validation. RESULTS: The main performance parameters were the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC). The random forest algorithm (AUROC 0.97; AUPRC 0.86) outperformed the recurrent neural network (AUROC 0.95; AUPRC 0.82) and the logistic regression algorithm (AUROC 0.92; AUPRC=0.72). The performance of the model was maintained over time, with the AUROC remaining at least 80% across the monitored time points during the 24 hours before event occurrence. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a prediction model of cardiac arrest in the ED using machine learning and sequential characteristics. The model was validated for clinical usefulness by chronological visualization focused on clinical usability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".