Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38433764›Full record

ArticleResuscitation plus2024

Prediction of outcomes after cardiac arrest by a generative artificial intelligence model.

Simon A Amacher, Armon Arpagaus, Christian Sahmer, Christoph Becker, Sebastian Gross, Tabita Urben, Kai Tisljar, Raoul Sutter, Stephan Marsch, Sabina Hunziker

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
15.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Simon A AmacherIntensive Care Medicine, Department of Acute Medical Care, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Armon ArpagausMedical Communication and Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Christian SahmerMedical Communication and Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Christoph BeckerMedical Communication and Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Sebastian GrossMedical Communication and Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Tabita UrbenMedical Communication and Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Kai TisljarIntensive Care Medicine, Department of Acute Medical Care, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Raoul SutterIntensive Care Medicine, Department of Acute Medical Care, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Stephan MarschIntensive Care Medicine, Department of Acute Medical Care, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Sabina HunzikerMedical Communication and Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
University Hospital of Basel · CHUniversity of Basel · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial intelligenceCardiac arrestCardiopulmonary resuscitationMortality predictionNeurological outcome

Identifiers

PMID38433764
PMCPMC10906512
OpenAlexW4392127977

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.