Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40486106›Full record

ReviewResuscitation plus2025

Artificial intelligence in resuscitation: a scoping review.

Drieda Zace, Federico Semeraro, Sebastian Schnaubelt, Jonathan Montomoli, Giuseppe Ristagno, Nino Fijačko, Lorenzo Gamberini, Elena G Bignami, Robert Greif, Koenraad G Monsieurs and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
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

11 authors.

Drieda ZaceDepartment of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Federico SemeraroDepartment of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care and Prehospital Emergency, Maggiore Hospital Carlo Alberto Pizzardi, Bologna, Italy.
Sebastian SchnaubeltPULS - Austrian Cardiac Arrest Awareness Association, Vienna, Austria.
Jonathan MontomoliDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Infermi Hospital, Romagna Local Health Authority, Rimini, Italy.
Giuseppe RistagnoDepartment of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, University of Milan, Italy.
Nino FijačkoUniversity of Maribor, Faculty of Health Sciences, Slovenia.
Lorenzo GamberiniDepartment of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care and Prehospital Emergency, Maggiore Hospital Carlo Alberto Pizzardi, Bologna, Italy.
Elena G BignamiAnesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine Division, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Robert GreifFaculty of Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Koenraad G MonsieursDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Antwerp University Hospital and University of Antwerp, Belgium.
Andrea ScapigliatiFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Institute of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly applied in medicine, with growing interest in its potential to improve outcomes in cardiac arrest (CA). However, the scope and characteristics of current AI applications in resuscitation remain unclear. Methods: This scoping review aims to map the existing literature on AI applications in CA and resuscitation and identify research gaps for further investigation. PRISMA-ScR framework and ILCOR guidelines were followed. A systematic literature search across PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane identified AI applications in resuscitation. Articles were screened and classified by AI methodology, study design, outcomes, and implementation settings. AI-assisted data extraction was manually validated for accuracy. Results: Out of 4046 records, 197 studies met inclusion criteria. Most were retrospective (90%), with only 16 prospective studies and 2 randomised controlled trials. AI was predominantly applied in prediction of CA, rhythm classification, and post-resuscitation outcome prognostication. Machine learning was the most commonly used method (50% of studies), followed by deep learning and, less frequently, natural language processing. Reported performance was generally high, with AUROC values often exceeding 0.85; however, external validation was rare and real-world implementation limited. Conclusions: While AI applications in resuscitation demonstrate encouraging performance in prediction and decision support tasks, clear evidence of improved patient outcomes or routine clinical use remains limited. Future research should focus on prospective validation, equity in data sources, explainability, and seamless integration of AI tools into clinical workflows.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceCardiac arrestDeep learningLarge language modelMachine learningResuscitationScoping review

Identifiers

PMID40486106
PMCPMC12142326

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.