Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) trial was a prospective, randomized, controlled study designed to compare the number of persons surviving to hospital discharge after experiencing an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOH-CA) among "community units" randomized to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) only or CPR plus an automated external defibrillator (AED). In 24 centers across the United States and Canada, 993 community units, composed of 1260 individual facilities, trained more than 19,000 layperson responders in CPR-only or CPR+AED. Survival to hospital discharge in the CPR+AED arm was double that of the CPR-only arm (30 vs 15, P = .03; RR = 2.0, 95% CI [1.07-3.77]). Intense focus on facility infrastructure, including responder recruitment and training, communication, evaluation, and oversight, was necessary for implementing the emergency response systems for the trial. Use of an AED within this structured response system can increase the number of survivors to hospital discharge after OOH-CA. Trained nonmedical responders can use AEDs safely and effectively.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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.
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".