Ease of Use of Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) by Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated two automated external defibrillators (AEDs) to determine the extent to which different AED designs affect the performance of older adults over the age of 65 years. Forty-two untrained laypersons (20 young adults, M = 27 years old and 22 older adults, M = 71 years old) were randomly assigned to use training versions of either the Medtronic LifePak CR Plus or the Zoll AED Plus during a simulated cardiac arrest using an iStan patient simulator. A number of aspects of AED designs were difficult for the two age groups. Fifty percent of older users and 55% of younger users were able to use the AEDs to deliver a shock to the patient. For those who were able to complete the appropriate tasks steps, younger adults ( M = 109.90, SD = 23.30) delivered the initial shock faster than older adults ( M = 141.46, SD = 50.62). Task completion rates differed by age group and AED type. The most problematic steps across age groups included opening and activating the AED, removing the liner and placing the pads on the patient simulator. This paper will also discuss the implications of the AED evaluations and redesign recommendations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".