MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2242612779

Thrombolysis in the air. Air-ambulance paramedics flying to remote communities treat patients before hospitalization.

2000· article· en· W2242612779 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hassanali Kapasi, Louise Kelly, Jennifer Morgan

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrombolysisMedicineMedical emergencyChecklistMyocardial infarctionEmergency medicineEmergency medical servicesInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PROBLEM ADDRESSED: First Nations* communities in the North have a high prevalence of coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes and face an increasing incidence of myocardial infarction (MI). Many conditions delay timely administration of thrombolysis, including long times between when patients first experience symptoms and when they present to community nursing stations, delays in air transfers to treating hospitals, uncertainty about when planes are available, and poor flying conditions. OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM: To develop a program for administration of thrombolysis on the way to hospital by air ambulance paramedics flying to remote communities to provide more rapid thrombolytic therapy to northern patients experiencing acute MIs. COMPONENTS OF PROGRAM: Critical care flight paramedics fly to northern communities from Sioux Lookout, Ont; assess patients; communicate with base hospital physicians; review an exclusion criteria checklist; and administer thrombolytics according to the Sioux Lookout District Health Centre/Base Hospital Policy and Procedure Manual. Patients are then flown to hospitals in Sioux Lookout; Winnipeg, Man; or Thunder Bay, Ont. CONCLUSION: This thrombolysis program is being pilot tested, and further evaluation and development is anticipated.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0950.018

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 head0.281
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research→French-language works237,207→