MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042031049 · doi:10.1080/312703002193

P REHOSPITAL H YPOGLYCEMIA : T HE S AFETY OF N OT T RANSPORTING T REATED P ATIENTS

2003· article· en· W2042031049 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital Emergency Care · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypoglycemiaObservational studyEmergency medicineEmergency departmentPediatricsEmergency medical servicesInternal medicineInsulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Emergency medical services (EMS) personnel frequently encounter patients who refuse transport after being treated for a hypoglycemic episode. The outcomes of most of these patients are unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the outcomes of patients treated and not transported for hypoglycemia and identify criteria that could be used to identify patients who did not require transport to hospital. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study involving all adult (>15 years) hypoglycemic patients (blood glucose less than 4 mmol/L by glucometer) attended to by the EMS system in the Halifax Metropolitan area in the province of Nova Scotia during a ten-month interval. RESULTS: There were 220 calls for adult patients with hypoglycemia. Of the 75 calls that resulted in transport, there were 17 further hypoglycemic episodes requiring a repeat call for an ambulance (22.7%) and three recurrences (4%). Of the 145 calls that did not result in transport, 40 further episodes of hypoglycemia (27.6%) and three recurrences (2%) were reported. These differences were not statistically significant (p=0.43 and 0.33, respectively). There was also no statistically significant difference in the intervals between hypoglycemic episodes for patients transported (51.1 days +/-65) compared with patients not transported for their previous hypogylcemic episode (40.7 days +/-53.5) (p=0.6). Of the 47 calls entered in the study, there were seven repeat calls for hypoglycemia (15%) and one recurrence (2.1%). The majority of patients did not follow up with their physician. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat episodes of hypoglycemia are common; however, recurrences within 48 hours are not. Admission to hospital is rarely required. There appears to be no difference in the incidence of recurrences and repeat episodes of hypoglycemia between transported and nontransported insulin-dependent patients, regardless of age. Given the high incidence of repeat episodes, paramedics and physicians need to emphasize the importance of follow-up.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.261 · 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