ArticleDie Anaesthesiologie2026
[Regression analysis to calculate the time point of ROSC-A feasibility study].
Article in Die Anaesthesiologie, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA regression model to estimate the duration from the onset of resuscitation efforts to the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) could help improving both resuscitation care and the quality control of registries. This study aims to evaluate the prediction accuracy and to identify challenges for future model development.
methodRegression models based on M5P, random forest (RF) algorithms and a linear regression (LR) modified using M5P were retrospectively developed using a Belgian cohort of 84 individuals in whom ROSC was achieved. Model performance was assessed using quality metrics, such as the correlation coefficient (CC), coefficient of determination (R
resultsIn the cohort 61.9% were male with a mean age of 65.7 years. A shockable rhythm was present in 27.7% of cases and the bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) rate was 48.2%. The no-flow time averaged 5.13 min. The mean time from CPR onset to first defibrillation was 7.81 min and to first medication administration 11.31 min. The ROSC occurred after an average of 16.8 min, the LR showed the highest correlation (0.73, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.72-0.74) and R
conclusionThe duration from the start of CPR to ROSC appears to be a process that is suitable for modelling with machine learning algorithms. At this early stage of development, the individual regression models did not demonstrate sufficient validity possibly due to low sample size and simplified data structure; however, the findings indicated potential for an application as a quality assurance tool to compare actual vs. predicted time to ROSC. Therefore, to increase the robustness the results require further evaluation in a larger cohort with additional variables and improved data quality based on the Utstein criteria.
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.