Impact of training in Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) in the professional career and work environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to evaluate the impact of Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) training in the professional career and work environment of physicians who took the course in a single center certified by the American Heart Association (AHA). Of the 4631 students (since 1999 to 2009), 2776 were located, 657 letters were returned, with 388 excluded from the analysis for being returned lacking addressees. The final study population was composed of 269 participants allocated in 3 groups (< 3 years, 3-5 and > 5years). Longer training was associated with older age, male gender, having undergone residency training, private office, greater earnings and longer time since graduation and a lower chance to participate in providing care for a cardiac arrest. Regarding personal change, no modification was detected according to time since taking the course. The only change in the work environment was the purchase of an automated external defibrillator (AED) by those who had taken the course more than 5 years ago. In multivariable analysis, however, the implementation of an AED was not independently associated with this group, which showed a lower chance to take a new ACLS course. ACLS courses should emphasize also how physicians could reinforce the survival chain through environmental changes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".