Optimizing a Drone Network to Deliver Automated External Defibrillators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Public access defibrillation programs can improve survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are rarely available for bystander use at the scene. Drones are an emerging technology that can deliver an AED to the scene of an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest for bystander use. We hypothesize that a drone network designed with the aid of a mathematical model combining both optimization and queuing can reduce the time to AED arrival. METHODS: We applied our model to 53 702 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests that occurred in the 8 regions of the Toronto Regional RescuNET between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2014. Our primary analysis quantified the drone network size required to deliver an AED 1, 2, or 3 minutes faster than historical median 911 response times for each region independently. A secondary analysis quantified the reduction in drone resources required if RescuNET was treated as a large coordinated region. RESULTS: The region-specific analysis determined that 81 bases and 100 drones would be required to deliver an AED ahead of median 911 response times by 3 minutes. In the most urban region, the 90th percentile of the AED arrival time was reduced by 6 minutes and 43 seconds relative to historical 911 response times in the region. In the most rural region, the 90th percentile was reduced by 10 minutes and 34 seconds. A single coordinated drone network across all regions required 39.5% fewer bases and 30.0% fewer drones to achieve similar AED delivery times. CONCLUSIONS: An optimized drone network designed with the aid of a novel mathematical model can substantially reduce the AED delivery time to an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest event.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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, 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".