MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104690692 · doi:10.1136/ebm.12.5.142

An escalating higher energy regimen was better than a fixed lower energy regimen for defibrillation in out of hospital cardiac arrest

2007· letter· en· W2104690692 on OpenAlexaffabout
Eddy Lang

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDefibrillationRegimenMedicineInternal medicineCardiologyAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stiell IG, Walker RG, Nesbitt LP, et al . BIPHASIC Trial: a randomized comparison of fixed lower versus escalating higher energy levels for defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circulation 2007;115:1511–7. [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q In patients with out of hospital cardiac arrest, is an escalating higher energy regimen better than a fixed lower energy regimen for arrhythmia termination with an automated external defibrillator (AED) using a biphasic waveform? Clinical impact ratings Emergency medicine ★★★★★★☆ Internal medicine ★★★★★★☆ Cardiology ★★★★★★☆ ### ![Graphic][3]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Allocation: concealed.* ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Blinding: blinded (healthcare providers, patients, data collectors, and outcome assessors).* ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Follow-up period: to death or hospital discharge. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Setting: out of hospital locations in 3 Canadian cities. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Patients: 221 patients ⩾8 years of age (mean age 66 y, 80% men) who had out of hospital cardiac arrest and required defibrillation (for ventricular fibrillation [VF] or pulseless ventricular tachycardia) and whose initial defibrillation was provided by first responders using an AED. Exclusion criteria included terminal illness, acute trauma, exsanguination, and not having basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation for >10 … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCirculation%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1161%252FCIRCULATIONAHA.106.648204%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17353443%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=circulationaha&resid=115/12/1511&atom=%2Febmed%2F12%2F5%2F142.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Randomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207