Abstract 16: Variability in Treated Versus Untreated Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Episodes Across the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emergency medical service (EMS) protocols, patient presentation, and provider judgment may influence whether resuscitation is initiated for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Variability in the proportion of OHCA patients who receive resuscitation attempts could distort comparative analyses. We aimed to determine whether the proportion of OHCA cases having resuscitation attempted varied between study sites within the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC). We also explored the relationship between the proportion of patients that were treated and the reported survival by ROC site. This was a retrospective study using the ROC Epistry database. We considered all non-traumatic cardiac arrests from 1/1/2006 to 12/31/2010 for inclusion. We excluded cases from EMS agencies that did not participate in the ROC PRIMED trial and from time periods with incomplete case capture. The proportion of patients who had resuscitation initiated by EMS personnel was the primary outcome. We used Chi-square to ...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".