MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410076467 · doi:10.1007/s10462-025-11214-w

Machine learning innovations in CPR: a comprehensive survey on enhanced resuscitation techniques

2025· article· en· W4410076467 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Intelligence Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of AlbertaConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsComputer scienceInterpretabilitySoftware deploymentPsychological interventionArtificial intelligenceData scienceProcess managementMedicineSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This survey paper explores the transformative role of Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), marking a paradigm shift from conventional, manually driven resuscitation practices to intelligent, data-driven interventions. It examines the evolution of CPR through the lens of predictive modeling, AI-enhanced devices, and real-time decision-making tools that collectively aim to improve resuscitation outcomes and survival rates. Unlike prior surveys that either focus solely on traditional CPR methods or offer general insights into ML applications in healthcare, this work provides a novel interdisciplinary synthesis tailored specifically to the domain of CPR. It presents a comprehensive taxonomy that classifies ML techniques into four key CPR-related tasks: rhythm analysis, outcome prediction, non-invasive blood pressure and chest compression modeling, and real-time detection of pulse and Return of Spontaneous Circulation (ROSC). The paper critically evaluates emerging ML approaches-including Reinforcement Learning (RL) and transformer-based models-while also addressing real-world implementation barriers such as model interpretability, data limitations, and deployment in high-stakes clinical settings. Furthermore, it highlights the role of eXplainable AI (XAI) in fostering clinical trust and adoption. By bridging the gap between resuscitation science and advanced ML techniques, this survey establishes a structured foundation for future research and practical innovation in ML-enhanced CPR. It offers clear insights, identifies unexplored opportunities, and sets a forward-looking research agenda identifying emerging trends and practical implementation challenges aiming to improve both the reliability and effectiveness of CPR in real-world emergencies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it