Use of blood alcohol concentration in resuscitation room patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To clarify the use of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in the emergency department resuscitation room, by comparing it with a subsequent alcohol questionnaire and by surveying patients' attitudes to BAC testing. DESIGN: Observational study. PARTICIPANTS: 273 resuscitation room patients at St Mary's Hospital, Paddington between August 2005 and February 2006. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: BAC comparison to questionnaire results, and attitudes to BAC testing. RESULTS: The level of agreement between positive screening by questionnaire and a BAC of >80 mg/100 ml was low (kappa = 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.46) because each test measures different aspects of drinking. Patients accepted the use of BAC tests in detecting alcohol use, though a small minority reported concerns over confidentiality. CONCLUSION: Use of BAC testing complements later questionnaire screening to identify alcohol misuse in patients initially brought to the emergency department resuscitation room, providing results are fed back to the patient. Potential ethical, judicial and insurance concerns should not prevent the use of BAC when judged to be in the patient's best interest.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".