MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291434325 · doi:10.14740/jocmr2456w

Use of Sodium Bicarbonate in Cardiac Arrest: Current Guidelines and Literature Review

2016· review· en· W2291434325 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dimitrios Velissaris, Vasileios Karamouzos, Charalampos Pierrakos, Ioanna Koniari, Christina Apostolopoulou, Μενέλαος Καρανικόλας

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSodium bicarbonateCurrent (fluid)BicarbonateSodiumIntensive care medicineInternal medicineMetallurgyEngineeringElectrical engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the review was to summarize the literature over the last 25 years regarding bicarbonate administration in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. A PubMed search was conducted using the terms "bicarbonates" and "cardiac arrest", limited to human studies and reviews published in English (or at least with a meaningful abstract in English) in the last 25 years. Clinical and experimental data raised questions regarding the safety and effectiveness of sodium bicarbonate (SB) administration during cardiac arrest. Earlier advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) guidelines recommended routine bicarbonate administration as part of the ACLS algorithm, but recent guidelines no longer recommend its use. The debate in the literature is ongoing, but at the present time, SB administration is only recommended for cardiac arrest related to hypokalemia or overdose of tricyclic antidepressants. Several studies challenge the assumption that bicarbonate administration is beneficial for treatment of acidosis in cardiac arrest. At the present time, there is a trend against using bicarbonates in cardiac arrest, and this trend is supported by guidelines published by professional societies and organizations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.486
GPT teacher head0.623
Teacher spread0.137 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations31
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207