MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Medical repatriation via fixed‐wing air ambulance: a review of patient characteristics and adverse events

2001· review· en· W2072695687 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTravel-related health issues
Canadian institutionsRegistered Nurses' Association of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRepatriationEmergency medicineIncidence (geometry)Adverse effectProspective cohort studyMedical emergencyIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anaesthetists are often employed as medical escorts for patients undergoing international transfer by air ambulance. There is little published data on the types of patients being transferred and on the incidence of adverse events. We performed a retrospective review of the documentation of all air ambulance transfers performed by a single company over a 2-year period followed by a prospective assessment of all high-risk patients transferred over a 1-year period. Of 483 transfers identified, 47% were defined as high-risk and 20% were of patients receiving mechanical ventilation. In the prospective group, 28% of patients required pretransfer optimisation, 7% required a major therapeutic intervention during transfer and there was a major adverse event in 12% of transfers. There were two deaths during transport. These data support the recommendation that escorting personnel should be from an appropriate speciality, have reasonable seniority and be adequately trained and supervised.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.320 · 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