ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
Role of artificial intelligence in predicting neurological outcomes in postcardiac resuscitation.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Being an extremely high mortality rate condition, cardiac arrest cases have rightfully been evaluated via various studies and scoring factors for effective resuscitative practices and neurological outcomes postresuscitation. This narrative review aims to explore the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in predicting neurological outcomes postcardiac resuscitation. The methodology involved a detailed review of all relevant recent studies of AI, different machine learning algorithms, prediction tools, and assessing their benefit in predicting neurological outcomes in postcardiac resuscitation cases as compared to more traditional prognostic scoring systems and tools. Previously, outcome determining clinical, blood, and radiological factors were prone to other influencing factors like limited accuracy and time constraints. Studies conducted also emphasized that to predict poor neurological outcomes, a more multimodal approach helped adjust for confounding factors, interpret diverse datasets, and provide a reliable prognosis, which only demonstrates the need for AI to help overcome challenges faced. Advanced machine learning algorithms like artificial neural networks (ANN) using supervised learning by AI have improved the accuracy of prognostic models outperforming conventional models. Several real-world cases of effective AI-powered algorithm models have been cited here. Studies comparing machine learning tools like XGBoost, AI Watson, hyperspectral imaging, ChatGPT-4, and AI-based gradient boosting have noted their beneficial uses. AI could help reduce workload, healthcare costs, and help personalize care, process vast genetic and lifestyle data and help reduce side effects from treatments. Limitations of AI have been covered extensively in this article, including data quality, bias, privacy issues, and transparency. Our objectives should be to use more diverse data sources, use interpretable data output giving process explanation, validation method, and implement policies to safeguard patient data. Despite the limitations, the advancements already made by AI and its potential in predicting neurological outcomes in postcardiac resuscitation cases has been quite promising and boosts a continually improving system, albeit requiring close human supervision with training and improving models, with plans to educate clinicians, the public and sharing collected data.
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.