MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801223479 · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000000562

COSCA (Core Outcome Set for Cardiac Arrest) in Adults: An Advisory Statement From the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation

2018· review· en· W2801223479 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kirstie Haywood, Laura Whitehead, Vinay Nadkarni, Felix Achana, Stefanie G. Beesems, Bernd W. Böttiger, Anne Brooks, Maaret Castrén, Marcus EH Ong, Mary Fran Hazinski, Rudolph W. Koster, Gisela Lilja, John Long, Koenraad G. Monsieurs, Peter T. Morley, Laurie J. Morrison, Graham Nichol, Valentino Oriolo, Gustavo Saposnik, Michael Smyth, Ken Spearpoint, Barry Williams, Gavin D. Perkins

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaEuropean Resuscitation CouncilAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMedicineResuscitationAdvisory committeeCardiopulmonary resuscitationStatement (logic)Cardiac resuscitationFamily medicineMedical emergencyEmergency medicineManagementLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac arrest effectiveness trials have traditionally reported outcomes that focus on survival. A lack of consistency in outcome reporting between trials limits the opportunities to pool results for meta-analysis. The COSCA initiative (Core Outcome Set for Cardiac Arrest), a partnership between patients, their partners, clinicians, research scientists, and the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, sought to develop a consensus core outcome set for cardiac arrest for effectiveness trials. Core outcome sets are primarily intended for large, randomised clinical effectiveness trials (sometimes referred to as pragmatic trials or phase III/IV trials) rather than for pilot or efficacy studies. A systematic review of the literature combined with qualitative interviews among cardiac arrest survivors was used to generate a list of potential outcome domains. This list was prioritised through a Delphi process, which involved clinicians, patients, and their relatives/partners. An international advisory panel narrowed these down to 3 core domains by debate that led to consensus. The writing group refined recommendations for when these outcomes should be measured and further characterised relevant measurement tools. Consensus emerged that a core outcome set for reporting on effectiveness studies of cardiac arrest (COSCA) in adults should include survival, neurological function, and health-related quality of life. This should be reported as survival status and modified Rankin scale score at hospital discharge, at 30 days, or both. Health-related quality of life should be measured with ≥1 tools from Health Utilities Index version 3, Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey, and EuroQol 5D-5L at 90 days and at periodic intervals up to 1 year after cardiac arrest, if resources allow. © 2018 European Resuscitation Council and American Heart Association, Inc. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.500
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.499
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5000.499
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.014
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0120.009
Open science0.0120.014
Research integrity0.0300.050
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations358
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207