Artificial Intelligence Model Predicts Sudden Cardiac Arrest Manifesting With Pulseless Electric Activity Versus Ventricular Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no specific treatment for sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) manifesting as pulseless electric activity (PEA) and survival rates are low; unlike ventricular fibrillation (VF), which is treatable by defibrillation. Development of novel treatments requires fundamental clinical studies, but access to the true initial rhythm has been a limiting factor. METHODS: Using demographics and detailed clinical variables, we trained and tested an AI model (extreme gradient boosting) to differentiate PEA-SCA versus VF-SCA in a novel setting that provided the true initial rhythm. A subgroup of SCAs are witnessed by emergency medical services personnel, and because the response time is zero, the true SCA initial rhythm is recorded. The internal cohort consisted of 421 emergency medical services-witnessed out-of-hospital SCAs with PEA or VF as the initial rhythm in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. External validation was performed in 220 emergency medical services-witnessed SCAs from Ventura, CA. RESULTS: In the internal cohort, the artificial intelligence model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.61-0.76). Model performance was similar in the external cohort, achieving an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.59-0.84). Anemia, older age, increased weight, and dyspnea as a warning symptom were the most important features of PEA-SCA; younger age, chest pain as a warning symptom and established coronary artery disease were important features associated with VF. CONCLUSIONS: The artificial intelligence model identified novel features of PEA-SCA, differentiated from VF-SCA and was successfully replicated in an external cohort. These findings enhance the mechanistic understanding of PEA-SCA with potential implications for developing novel management strategies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".