An automated external defibrillator in the home did not reduce all-cause mortality in patients at risk of cardiac arrestCommentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
G H Bardy Dr G H Bardy, Seattle Institute for Cardiac Research, Seattle, WA, USA; gbardy@sicr.org In stable patients at increased risk of sudden cardiac arrest, does having an automated external defibrillator (AED) in the home reduce all-cause mortality compared with training in usual emergency procedures? ### Design: randomised controlled trial (Home Automated External Defibrillator Trial [HAT]). ### Allocation: {concealed}.* ### Blinding: blinded (outcome adjudication committee). ### Follow-up period: median 37 months. ### Setting: 178 clinical sites in the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Germany. ### Patients: 7001 patients (median age 62 y, 83% men) who had had anterior-wall myocardial infarction, were not candidates for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy, and had a spouse or companion at home who was willing and able to perform the study interventions. ### Intervention: provision of an AED for home use (n = 3495) …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".