MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151651248 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000000171

The Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology Consensus Statement on the Management of Cardiac Arrest in Pregnancy

2014· review· en· W2151651248 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Lipman, Sheila E. Cohen, Sharon Einav, Farida M. Jeejeebhoy, Jill M. Mhyre, Laurie J. Morrison, Vern L. Katz, Lawrence C. Tsen, Kay Daniels, Louis P. Halamek, S. Suresh, Julie M.R. Arafeh, Dodi Gauthier, Jose C. A. Carvalho, Maurice L. Druzin, Brendan Carvalho

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStatement (logic)Obstetric anesthesiaCardiopulmonary resuscitationResuscitationMedical emergencyPregnancyHealth careIntensive care medicineNeonatal resuscitationEmergency medicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This consensus statement was commissioned in 2012 by the Board of Directors of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology to improve maternal resuscitation by providing health care providers critical information (including point-of-care checklists) and operational strategies relevant to maternal cardiac arrest. The recommendations in this statement were designed to address the challenges of an actual event by emphasizing health care provider education, behavioral/communication strategies, latent systems errors, and periodic testing of performance. This statement also expands on, interprets, and discusses controversial aspects of material covered in the American Heart Association 2010 guidelines.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.310
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations193
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207