Push hard, push fast: quasi-experimental study on the capacity of elementary schoolchildren to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal age to begin CPR training is a matter of debate. This study aims to determine if elementary schoolchildren have the capacity to administer CPR efficiently. METHODS: This quasi-experimental study took place in a Quebec City school. Eighty-two children 10 to 12 years old received a 6-hour CPR course based on the American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines. A comparison group of 20 adults who had taken the same CPR course was recruited. After training, participants' performance was evaluated using a Skillreporter manikin. The primary outcome was depth of compressions. The secondary outcomes were compression rate, insufflation volume and adherence to the CPR sequence. Children's performance was primarily evaluated based on the 2005 AHA standards and secondarily compared to the adults' performance. RESULTS: Schoolchildren did not reach the lower thresholds for depth (28.1 +/- 5.9 vs 38 mm; one-sided p = 1.0). The volume of the recorded insufflations was sufficient (558.6 +/222.8 vs 500 ml; one-sided p = 0.02), but there were a significant number of unsuccessful insufflation attempts not captured by the Skillreporter. The children reached the minimal threshold for rate (113.9 +/-18.3 vs 90/min; one-sided p < 0.001). They did not perform as well as the adults regarding compression depth (p < 0.001), but were comparable for insufflation volume (p = 0.83) and CPR sequence. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, schoolchildren aged 10-12 years old did not achieve the standards for compression depth, but achieved adequate compression rate and CPR sequence. When attempts were successful at generating airflow in the Skillreporter, insufflation volume was also adequate.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".