Machine learning innovations in CPR: a comprehensive survey on enhanced resuscitation techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".