Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, there is a lack of effective early assessment tools for predicting the onset and development of cardiac arrest (CA). With the increasing attention of clinical researchers on machine learning (ML), some researchers have developed ML models for predicting the occurrence and prognosis of CA, with certain models appearing to outperform traditional scoring tools. However, these models still lack systematic evidence to substantiate their efficacy. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the prediction value of ML in CA for occurrence, good neurological prognosis, mortality, and the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), thereby providing evidence-based support for the development and refinement of applicable clinical tools. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched from their establishment until May 17, 2024. The risk of bias in all prediction models was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. RESULTS: In total, 93 studies were selected, encompassing 5,729,721 in-hospital and out-of-hospital patients. The meta-analysis revealed that, for predicting CA, the pooled C-index, sensitivity, and specificity derived from the imbalanced validation dataset were 0.90 (95% CI 0.87-0.93), 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.87), and 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.96), respectively. On the basis of the balanced validation dataset, the pooled C-index, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.88 (95% CI 0.86-0.90), 0.72 (95% CI 0.49-0.95), and 0.79 (95% CI 0.68-0.91), respectively. For predicting the good cerebral performance category score 1 to 2, the pooled C-index, sensitivity, and specificity based on the validation dataset were 0.86 (95% CI 0.85-0.87), 0.72 (95% CI 0.61-0.81), and 0.79 (95% CI 0.66-0.88), respectively. For predicting CA mortality, the pooled C-index, sensitivity, and specificity based on the validation dataset were 0.85 (95% CI 0.82-0.87), 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.87), and 0.79 (95% CI 0.74-0.83), respectively. For predicting ROSC, the pooled C-index, sensitivity, and specificity based on the validation dataset were 0.77 (95% CI 0.74-0.80), 0.53 (95% CI 0.31-0.74), and 0.88 (95% CI 0.71-0.96), respectively. In predicting CA, the most significant modeling variables were respiratory rate, blood pressure, age, and temperature. In predicting a good cerebral performance category score 1 to 2, the most significant modeling variables in the in-hospital CA group were rhythm (shockable or nonshockable), age, medication use, and gender; the most significant modeling variables in the out-of-hospital CA group were age, rhythm (shockable or nonshockable), medication use, and ROSC. CONCLUSIONS: ML represents a currently promising approach for predicting the occurrence and outcomes of CA. Therefore, in future research on CA, we may attempt to systematically update traditional scoring tools based on the superior performance of ML in specific outcomes, achieving artificial intelligence-driven enhancements. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42024518949; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=518949.