MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1605201808 · doi:10.1161/circ.130.suppl_2.264

Abstract 264: The Association of Chest Compression Fraction and Clinical Outcomes from Shockable Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest During the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Primed Trial

2014· article· en· W1605201808 on OpenAlexaff
Sheldon Cheskes, Robert H. Schmicker, Tom Rea, Judy Powell, Ian R. Drennan, Peter Kudenchuck, Christian Vaillancourt, William Conway, Ian G. Stiell, D. Stubb, Dan Davis, Noah Alexander, Jim Christenson

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReturn of spontaneous circulationCardiopulmonary resuscitationResuscitationConfoundingOdds ratioTargeted temperature managementInternal medicineEmergency medical servicesLogistic regressionEmergency medicineCardiologyAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The role of chest compression fraction (CCF) in resuscitation of shockable out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is uncertain. We evaluated the relationship between CCF and clinical outcomes in a secondary analysis of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) PRIMED trial. METHODS: We included OHCA patients from the ROC PRIMED trial who suffered cardiac arrest prior to EMS arrival, presented with a shockable rhythm, and had cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) process data for at least one shock. We used multivariable logistic regression adjusting for Utstein variables, CPR metrics of compression rate and perishock pause, and ROC site to determine the relationship between CCF and survival to hospital discharge, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and neurologically intact survival defined with Modified Rankin Score (MRS) ≤ 3. Due to potential confounding between CCF and cases that achieved early ROSC, we also performed an analysis restricted to patients without ROSC in the first 10 minutes of EMS resuscitation. RESULTS: Among the 2,558 eligible patients, median (IQR) age was 65 (54, 76) years, 76.9% were male, and mean (SD) CCF was 0.70 (0.15). Compared to the reference group (CCF < 0.60), the odds ratio (OR) for survival was 0.57 (95%CI: 0.42, 0.78) for CCF 0.60-0.79 and 0.32 (95%CI: 0.22, 0.48) for CCF ≥0.80. Results were similar for outcomes of ROSC and neurologically intact survival. Conversely, when restricted to the cohort who did not achieve ROSC during the first 10 minutes (n=1,660), the relationship between CCF and survival was no longer significant. Compared to the reference group (CCF < 0.60), the OR for survival was 0.85 (95 %CI: 0.58, 1.26) for CCF 0.60-0.79 and OR 0.87 (95%CI: 0.58, 1.36) for CCF ≥0.80. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational cohort study of OHCA patients presenting in a shockable rhythm, CCF when adjusted for Utstein predictors, CPR metrics and ROC site was paradoxically associated with lower odds of survival. The relationship between CCF and clinical outcomes was null in a sensitivity analysis restricted to patients without ROSC in the first 10 minutes. CCF is a complex measure and taken by itself may not be a consistent predictor of clinical outcome.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→