ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2026
Prediction of in-hospital cardiac arrest on general wards using calibrated machine learning.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify time-windowed clinical predictors of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and develop a temporally validated, calibrated machine-learning early warning for general wards.
methodsRetrospective matched case-control study at a tertiary hospital in Taiwan (2019-2021) including 115 IHCA cases and 115 controls matched on age and ward. Patients with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders were excluded. Demographics, comorbidities and laboratory results were extracted from electronic health records. Vital signs and level of consciousness were sampled in 16-24, 8-16 and 1-8-hour windows before the index time and summarised as the modified early warning score (MEWS). Models were trained with fivefold cross-validation and isotonic probability calibration and tested on a temporally held-out 2021 cohort.
resultsAtrial fibrillation (OR 6.30), heart failure (OR 2.98), end-stage renal disease (OR 2.54), potassium (OR 1.81 per 1 mEq/L) and white blood count (OR 1.06 per 1 k/µL) were independent predictors. MEWS was associated with IHCA up to 16 hours, whereas in the final 8-hour lower SpO₂ predominated (OR 1.30 per 1% decrease; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.54). Calibrated XGBoost achieved Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUROC) curve 0.89 and average precision (AP) 0.88; at sensitivity 0.95, specificity was 0.47 in the matched test set.
conclusionsCombining comorbidity burden, laboratory indices and time-windowed physiology enabled high-sensitivity IHCA warning. Because matching inflates event prevalence, AP, positive predictive value and calibration require recalibration to real-world prevalence; prospective multicentre validation is needed.
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.