P067: Missed opportunities for prehospital management of anaphylactic reactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Emergency medical services (EMS) have the opportunity to treat allergic reactions anaphylactic reactions rapidly. However, the rate of recognition and treatment is unknown. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at two urban emergency departments from 2007 to 2012 including adult patients with allergy and anaphylaxis, both of which were predefined by explicit criteria. The patients of interest were those attended by EMS and transported to hospital. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who met anaphylaxis criteria in the prehospital setting, but who did not have epinephrine administered. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients who did not meet anaphylaxis criteria, yet had epinephrine administered. Results: Of 2819 overall patients, 491 (17.4%) arrived by EMS. The median age was 38 (IQR 27 to 49) and 60.9% were female. For the 151 (30.8%) patients with anaphylaxis, 55 received ephinephrine, (36.4%, 95% CI 27.4 to 47.4%). For the 340 (69.2%) patients without anaphylaxis, 28 received ephinephrine (8.2%, 95% CI 5.5 to 11.9%). Conclusion: For patients with anaphylaxis and allergic reactions who are managed by EMS, there may be a mismatch between illness severity and treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".