Artificial Intelligence in Predicting Cardiac Arrest: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest is a life-threatening cessation of activity in the heart. Early prediction of cardiac arrest is important, as it allows for the necessary measures to be taken to prevent or intervene during the onset. Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies and big data have been increasingly used to enhance the ability to predict and prepare for the patients at risk. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the use of AI technology in predicting cardiac arrest as reported in the literature. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted in line with the guidelines of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) extension for scoping reviews. Scopus, ScienceDirect, Embase, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and Google Scholar were searched to identify relevant studies. Backward reference list checks of the included studies were also conducted. Study selection and data extraction were independently conducted by 2 reviewers. Data extracted from the included studies were synthesized narratively. RESULTS: Out of 697 citations retrieved, 41 studies were included in the review, and 6 were added after backward citation checking. The included studies reported the use of AI in the prediction of cardiac arrest. Of the 47 studies, we were able to classify the approaches taken by the studies into 3 different categories: 26 (55%) studies predicted cardiac arrest by analyzing specific parameters or variables of the patients, whereas 16 (34%) studies developed an AI-based warning system. The remaining 11% (5/47) of studies focused on distinguishing patients at high risk of cardiac arrest from patients who were not at risk. Two studies focused on the pediatric population, and the rest focused on adults (45/47, 96%). Most of the studies used data sets with a size of <10,000 samples (32/47, 68%). Machine learning models were the most prominent branch of AI used in the prediction of cardiac arrest in the studies (38/47, 81%), and the most used algorithm was the neural network (23/47, 49%). K-fold cross-validation was the most used algorithm evaluation tool reported in the studies (24/47, 51%). CONCLUSIONS: AI is extensively used to predict cardiac arrest in different patient settings. Technology is expected to play an integral role in improving cardiac medicine. There is a need for more reviews to learn the obstacles to the implementation of AI technologies in clinical settings. Moreover, research focusing on how to best provide clinicians with support to understand, adapt, and implement this technology in their practice is also necessary.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".