MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149673794 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa060334

Advanced Life Support for Out-of-Hospital Respiratory Distress

2007· article· en· W2149673794 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ian G. Stiell, Daniel W. Spaite, Brian Field, Lisa Nesbitt, Doug Munkley, Justin Maloney, Jon Dreyer, Lorraine Luinstra Toohey, Tony Campeau, Eugene Dagnone, Marion B. Lyver, George A. Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityWestern UniversityJoseph Brant HospitalMinistry of Health and Long Term CareRegional Municipality of NiagaraUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsMedicineAdvanced life supportLife supportRespiratory distressBasic life supportConfidence intervalOdds ratioIntubationEmergency medicineRegimenAdvanced cardiac life supportClinical trialPsychological interventionAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineInternal medicineResuscitationCardiopulmonary resuscitationNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Respiratory distress is a common symptom of patients transported to hospitals by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel. The benefit of advanced life support for such patients has not been established. METHODS: The Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support (OPALS) Study was a controlled clinical trial that was conducted in 15 cities before and after the implementation of a program to provide advanced life support for patients with out-of-hospital respiratory distress. Paramedics were trained in standard advanced life support, including endotracheal intubation and the administration of intravenous drugs. RESULTS: The clinical characteristics of the 8138 patients in the two phases of the study were similar. During the first phase, no patients were treated by paramedics trained in advanced life support; during the second phase, 56.6% of patients received this treatment. Endotracheal intubation was performed in 1.4% of the patients, and intravenous drugs were administered to 15.0% during the second phase. This phase of the study was also marked by a substantial increase in the use of nebulized salbutamol and sublingual nitroglycerin for the relief of symptoms. The rate of death among all patients decreased significantly, from 14.3% to 12.4% (absolute difference, 1.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4 to 3.4; P=0.01) from the basic-life-support phase to the advanced-life-support phase (adjusted odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.5). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a specific regimen of out-of-hospital advanced-life-support interventions to an existing EMS system that provides basic life support was associated with a decrease in the rate of death of 1.9 percentage points among patients with respiratory distress.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations114
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207