Cited by 299Cardiac Arrest and ResuscitationMachine Learning in HealthcareHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring

An algorithm based on deep learning for predicting in-hospital cardiac arrest

Open access
Kwon, Joon‐myoung, Lee, Youngnam, Lee, Yeha, Lee, Seungwoo, Park, Jinsik·2018·Journal of the American Heart Association

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In-hospital cardiac arrest is a major burden to public health, which affects patient safety. Although traditional track-and-trigger systems are used to predict cardiac arrest early, they have limitations, with low sensitivity and high false-alarm rates. We propose a deep learning-based early warning system that shows higher performance than the existing track-and-trigger systems. METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective cohort study reviewed patients who were admitted to 2 hospitals from June 2010 to July 2017. A total of 52 131 patients were included. Specifically, a recurrent neural network was trained using data from June 2010 to January 2017. The result was tested using the data from February to July 2017. The primary outcome was cardiac arrest, and the secondary outcome was death without attempted resuscitation. As comparative measures, we used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), and the net reclassification index. Furthermore, we evaluated sensitivity while varying the number of alarms. The deep learning-based early warning system (AUROC: 0.850; AUPRC: 0.044) significantly outperformed a modified early warning score (AUROC: 0.603; AUPRC: 0.003), a random forest algorithm (AUROC: 0.780; AUPRC: 0.014), and logistic regression (AUROC: 0.613; AUPRC: 0.007). Furthermore, the deep learning-based early warning system reduced the number of alarms by 82.2%, 13.5%, and 42.1% compared with the modified early warning system, random forest, and logistic regression, respectively, at the same sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: An algorithm based on deep learning had high sensitivity and a low false-alarm rate for detection of patients with cardiac arrest in the multicenter study.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/jaha.118.008678

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These methods improve interpretability but may not fully represent the internal decision process, leading to discrepancies between explanations and model behaviour.

    “These methods improve interpretability but may not fully represent the internal decision process, leading to discrepancies between explanations and model behaviour [37,24].”

    From Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Decision-Making: A Comprehensive Review of Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Applications, Validation Gaps, Bias, and Deployment Challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) describes deep learning as a black box and says the authors' DEWS model is not interpretable; interpretable deep learning is identified as future work. It does not assess whether interpretability methods faithfully represent a model's decision process or whether explanations diverge from model behaviour. Searches for explanation fidelity and discrepancies found no passage addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [45]Fong RC, Vedaldi A. Interpretable explanations of black boxes by meaningful perturbation. Proc IEEE Int Conf Comput Vis. 2017; 1: 3449– 3457.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kwon, J., Lee, Y., Lee, Y., Lee, S., & Park, J.
Affiliations
  • Department of Emergency Medicine Mediplex Sejong Hospital Incheon Korea
  • VUNO Seoul Korea
  • Department of Cardiology Mediplex Sejong Hospital Incheon Korea
Corresponding author
Kwon, Joon‐myoung
Venue
Journal of the American Heart Association
Published
2018-07-03
Volume
7
Issue
13
ISSN
2047-9980 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2811095531
Cited by
299
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 8
FWCI
37.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Journal of the American Heart Association (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Keywords
in-hospital cardiac arrest, early warning systems, deep learning, recurrent neural networks, track and trigger systems, Modified Early Warning Score, false alarm rate, hospital patient safety, risk prediction
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Adult, Aged, Decision Support Techniques, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Female, Heart Arrest, Humans, Inpatients, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Resuscitation, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Risk Assessment, Early Diagnosis, Vital Signs, Seoul

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review