MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028864731 · doi:10.5001/omj.2012.108

Pediatric Basic and Advanced Life Support: An Update on Practice and Education

2012· article· en· W2028864731 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mohamed Al-Shamsi, Waleed Alqurashi, Allan de Caen, Farhan Bhanji

Bibliographic record

VenueOman Medical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMcGill UniversityChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiopulmonary resuscitationBasic life supportReturn of spontaneous circulationResuscitationAdvanced life supportAdvanced cardiac life supportIntensive care medicineAirwayPulse oximetryMedical emergencyEmergency medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review aims to summarize the major changes in the 2010 Heart and Stroke foundation of Canada (HSFC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) Pediatric Basic and Advanced Life Support Guidelines. The Guidelines were based on the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation's (ILCOR) comprehensive, evidence-based review of the resuscitation literature. The key recommendations from the Guidelines include: the removal of "look, listen and feel" and a de-emphasis on the use of the pulse check by healthcare providers to diagnose cardiac arrest; a change in the sequence of resuscitation for patients in cardiac arrest from the previously well-known "A-B-C" i.e. Airway, Breathing, and Chest Compressions to "C-A-B" i.e. Chest Compressions first; modification to the appropriate depth of compression (at least 1/3 of the anterior-posterior depth of the chest wall or about 4 cm in infants and 5 cm in children); end-tidal CO(2) monitoring (in intubated patients) to assess the quality of chest compressions and optimize cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); and titrating Fi0O2 once "Return of Spontaneous Circulation" (ROSC) is achieved to maintain an oxygen saturation between 94-99%. Overall, pediatricians, family and community physicians who may care for acutely ill children should be aware of these updated guidelines in order to provide the best possible care to their patients.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOman Medical JournalSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207