MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063271815 · doi:10.1080/10903120290938689

I MPACT OF P ROMPT D EFIBRILLATION ON C ARDIAC A RREST AT A M AJOR I NTERNATIONAL A IRPORT

2002· article· en· W2063271815 on OpenAlexaff
Russell D. MacDonald, JL Mottley, Carl Weinstein

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital Emergency Care · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrewMedicineMedical emergencyBasic life supportEmergency medical servicesCardiopulmonary resuscitationAdvanced life supportAutomated external defibrillatorEmergency medicineResuscitationAeronauticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact of a rapidly deployable, automated external defibrillator (AED)-equipped first-responder service at Boston's Logan International Airport on the rate of survival to hospital discharge after cardiac arrest. METHODS: A prospective observational outcome study was undertaken for cardiac arrests taking place on the airport grounds from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 1999. Patients were included if they were unresponsive, they had no palpable pulse and no spontaneous respirations, an AED was turned on, and the cardiac arrest took place on airport grounds. Airport fire rescue and emergency medical services (EMS) personnel submitted resuscitation records and AED memory modules for each cardiac arrest. Each author independently reviewed all cardiac arrest reports and code summaries to ensure accuracy and data integrity. Relevant dispatch and response times were determined from airport fire rescue and EMS dispatch records. Patient outcome was determined from hospital patient records. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: The airport fire rescue crew responded to 53 cardiac arrests. Of those, 38 met inclusion criteria. In 36 of 38 cases (94.7%), the airport fire rescue crew was first to apply the defibrillator, and the first to deliver a shock in 28 of 32 cases (87.5%) where a shock was delivered. The median response time for the airport fire rescue crew was 2 minutes, with a mode of 1 minute. The EMS response times were 5:29 (95% CI 4:37-6:19) for basic life support crews and 8:07 (95% CI 7:17-8:57) for advanced life support crews. All patients who survived to hospital admission (n = 15) and hospital discharge (n = 8) received their first shock by the airport fire rescue crew. Eight patients (21.1%) survived to hospital discharge. In five of the eight survivors to hospital discharge, defibrillation by the airport crew alone achieved a return of spontaneous circulation. CONCLUSIONS: A rapidly deployable first-responder service permits early defibrillation minutes before arrival of EMS personnel. This rapid response positively impacts the return of spontaneous circulation and survival to hospital discharge after cardiac arrest.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations72
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrehospital Emergency CareSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207