Compared to conventional CPR for in-hospital cardiac arrest, extracorporeal-CPR is associated with improved survival to hospital discharge and more favourable neurological outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commentary on: Lasa JJ, Rogers RS, Localio R, et al. Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (E-CPR) During pediatric in-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest is associated with improved survival to discharge: a report from the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation (GWTG-R) registry. Circulation 2016;133:165–76[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2]. Data from national and international paediatric databases indicate that the use of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (E-CPR) is increasing.1 Considering the significant resources and cost involved in the use of E-CPR, its use needs to be critically examined to optimise outcomes. This large, multicentre study compared conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (C-CPR) and (E-CPR) in paediatric in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). This is a retrospective multicentre cohort study that used data from the American Heart Association Get with the Guidelines Registry. The study included all children (<18 years of age) who had an IHCA and received CPR for ≥10 min between 1 January 2000 and 31 December, 2011. Patients from hospitals with no E-CPR cases, obstetric and trauma diagnosis, missing E-CPR or survival information and … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCirculation%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1161%252FCIRCULATIONAHA.115.016082%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F26635402%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=circulationaha&resid=133/2/165&atom=%2Febmed%2F21%2F6%2F227.atom
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".