ArticleResuscitation plus2024
Prediction of outcomes after cardiac arrest by a generative artificial intelligence model.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- The applications of ChatGPT and other large language models in anesthesiology and critical care: a systematic review.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025Pooled it
- Application of Machine Learning for Patients With Cardiac Arrest: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative performance of LLMs and machine learning in predicting complications after percutaneous kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Drone-delivered automated external defibrillators in prehospital emergency care: implementation evidence, bottlenecks, and conceptual integration with artificial intelligence and next-generation communications.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Traditional Cox regression outperforms large language models in predicting long-term progression of intermediate to advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Large Language Models in Critical Care Medicine: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Current and emerging innovations in technology, strategy, and artificial intelligence: a new era in cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation.World journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in cardiovascular procedures: a bibliometric and visual analysis study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Can the large language model ChatGPT-4omni predict outcomes in adult patients with status epilepticus?Epilepsia · 2025Article
- Comprehensive pre- and in-hospital near-infrared-spectroscopy (NIRS) monitoring after return of spontaneous circulation predicts neurological outcome following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a prospective observational study and literature review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Applications of generative artificial intelligence in outcome prediction in intensive care medicine-a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
- Role of artificial intelligence in predicting neurological outcomes in postcardiac resuscitation.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Review
- Mapping artificial intelligence models in emergency medicine: A scoping review on artificial intelligence performance in emergency care and education.Turkish journal of emergency medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: To investigate the prognostic accuracy of a non-medical generative artificial intelligence model (Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer 4 - ChatGPT-4) as a novel aspect in predicting death and poor neurological outcome at hospital discharge based on real-life data from cardiac arrest patients. Methods: This prospective cohort study investigates the prognostic performance of ChatGPT-4 to predict outcomes at hospital discharge of adult cardiac arrest patients admitted to intensive care at a large Swiss tertiary academic medical center (COMMUNICATE/PROPHETIC cohort study). We prompted ChatGPT-4 with sixteen prognostic parameters derived from established post-cardiac arrest scores for each patient. We compared the prognostic performance of ChatGPT-4 regarding the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and likelihood ratios of three cardiac arrest scores (Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest [OHCA], Cardiac Arrest Hospital Prognosis [CAHP], and PROgnostication using LOGistic regression model for Unselected adult cardiac arrest patients in the Early stages [PROLOGUE score]) for in-hospital mortality and poor neurological outcome. Results: Mortality at hospital discharge was 43% (n = 309/713), 54% of patients (n = 387/713) had a poor neurological outcome. ChatGPT-4 showed good discrimination regarding in-hospital mortality with an AUC of 0.85, similar to the OHCA, CAHP, and PROLOGUE (AUCs of 0.82, 0.83, and 0.84, respectively) scores. For poor neurological outcome, ChatGPT-4 showed a similar prediction to the post-cardiac arrest scores (AUC 0.83). Conclusions: ChatGPT-4 showed a similar performance in predicting mortality and poor neurological outcome compared to validated post-cardiac arrest scores. However, more research is needed regarding illogical answers for potential incorporation of an LLM in the multimodal outcome prognostication after cardiac arrest.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.