MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312041016 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2312

Optimizing the Deployment of Public Access Defibrillators

2016· article· en· W2312041016 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Timothy C. Y. Chan, Derya Demirtas, Roy H. Kwon

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSoftware deploymentAutomated external defibrillatorDefibrillationComputer scienceCardiopulmonary resuscitationKernel density estimationMathematical optimizationMedicineResuscitationMathematicsEmergency medicineStatisticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a significant public health issue, and treatment, namely, cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation, is very time sensitive. Public access defibrillation programs, which deploy automated external defibrillators (AEDs) for bystander use in an emergency, reduce the time to defibrillation and improve survival rates. In this paper, we develop models to guide the deployment of public AEDs. Our models generalize existing location models and incorporate differences in bystander behavior. We formulate three mixed integer nonlinear models and derive equivalent integer linear reformulations or easily computable bounds. We use kernel density estimation to derive a spatial probability distribution of cardiac arrests that is used for optimization and model evaluation. Using data from Toronto, Canada, we show that optimizing AED deployment outperforms the existing approach by 40% in coverage, and substantial gains can be achieved through relocating existing AEDs. Our results suggest that improvements in survival and cost-effectiveness are possible with optimization. This paper was accepted by Dimitris Bertsimas, optimization.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations98
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement ScienceSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207