Survey of determination of death after cardiac arrest by intensive care physicians*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The controversy regarding death determination in the context of organ donation after cardiocirculatory death requires investigation. We sought to describe the manner in which Canadian adult and pediatric intensive care physicians report death determination after cardiac arrest. DESIGN: Pilot-tested paper survey. SETTING: Mail out between June and November 2009. SUBJECTS: Canadian adult and pediatric intensive care physicians. INTERVENTION: Paper-based survey. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-nine percent of 501 Canadian intensive care physicians responded. Eighty-five percent practiced in tertiary care, university-affiliated centers, and 26% were from pediatric centers. Physicians had a median of 10 yrs (range 0-35) experience. Physicians reported that they performed determination of death after cardiac arrest a median of seven (range 0-60) times per year. Of 11 tests or procedures used, the absence of heart sounds by auscultation, palpable pulse, and breath sounds were the most common, although there was high variability in practice. No diagnostic test/procedure was uniformly performed or omitted. Sixty-five percent of respondents believed autoresuscitation exists and 37% of physicians reported to have seen a possible case during their career. Forty-eight percent had formal training for determining death after cardiac arrest and 22% used guidelines. The majority of respondents agreed that standardized methods for determination of death after cardiac arrest are required in general (69%) and specifically for donation after cardiocirculatory death (91%). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive care physicians in Canada report: 1) variability in the practice of determining death after cardiac arrest; 2) the existence of autoresuscitation; and 3) a need for standardization of practice. The results of this survey support the need to develop more robust education, guidelines, and standards for the determination of death after cardiac arrest, in general, as well as within the context of donation after cardiocirculatory death.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".