Identifying Locations for Public Access Defibrillators Using Mathematical Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Geospatial methods using mathematical optimization to identify clusters of cardiac arrests and prioritize public locations for defibrillator deployment have not been studied. Our objective was to develop such a method and test its performance against a population-guided approach. METHODS AND RESULTS: All public location cardiac arrests in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, from December 16, 2005, to July 15, 2010, and all automated external defibrillator (AED) locations registered with Toronto Emergency Medical Services as of September 2009 were plotted geographically. Current AED coverage was quantified by determining the number of cardiac arrests occurring within 100 m of a registered AED. Clusters of cardiac arrests without a registered AED within 100 m were identified. With the use of mathematical optimization techniques, cardiac arrest coverage improvements were computed and shown to be superior to results from a population-guided deployment method. There were 1310 eligible public location cardiac arrests and 1669 registered AEDs. Of the eligible cardiac arrests, 304 were within 100 m of at least 1 registered AED (23% coverage). The average distance from a cardiac arrest to the closest AED was 281 m. With AEDs deployed in the top 30 locations, an additional 112 historical cardiac arrests would be covered (32% total coverage), and the average distance to the closest AED would be 262 m. CONCLUSIONS: Geographic clusters of cardiac arrests can be easily identified and prioritized with the use of mathematical modeling. Optimized AED deployment can increase cardiac arrest coverage and decrease the distance to the closest AED. Mathematical modeling can augment public AED deployment programs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".