MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996883717 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa020932

Public Use of Automated External Defibrillators

2002· article· en· W1996883717 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsInternational Civil Aviation Organization
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVentricular fibrillationDefibrillationMedical emergencyAutomated external defibrillatorEmergency medicineCardiologyResuscitationCardiopulmonary resuscitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Automated external defibrillators save lives when they are used by designated personnel in certain public settings. We performed a two-year prospective study at three Chicago airports to assess whether random bystanders witnessing out-of-hospital cardiac arrests would retrieve and successfully use automated external defibrillators. METHODS: Defibrillators were installed a brisk 60-to-90-second walk apart throughout passenger terminals at O'Hare, Midway, and Meigs Field airports, which together serve more than 100 million passengers per year. The use of defibrillators was promoted by public-service videos in waiting areas, pamphlets, and reports in the media. We assessed the time from notification of the dispatchers to defibrillation, survival rate at 72 hours and at one year among persons with cardiac arrest, their neurologic status, and the characteristics of rescuers. RESULTS: Over a two-year period, 21 persons had nontraumatic cardiac arrest, 18 of whom had ventricular fibrillation. With two exceptions, defibrillator operators were good Samaritans, acting voluntarily. In the case of four patients with ventricular fibrillation, defibrillators were neither nearby nor used within five minutes, and none of these patients survived. Three others remained in fibrillation and eventually died, despite the rapid use of a defibrillator (within five minutes). Eleven patients with ventricular fibrillation were successfully resuscitated, including eight who regained consciousness before hospital admission. No shock was delivered in four cases of suspected cardiac arrest, and the device correctly indicated that the problem was not due to ventricular fibrillation. The rescuers of 6 of the 11 successfully resuscitated patients had no training or experience in the use of automated defibrillators, although 3 had medical degrees. Ten of the 18 patients with ventricular fibrillation were alive and neurologically intact at one year. CONCLUSIONS: Automated external defibrillators deployed in readily accessible, well-marked public areas in Chicago airports were used effectively to assist patients with cardiac arrest. In the cases of survivors, most of the users had no duty to act and no prior training in the use of these devices.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.218 · 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