MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 18748: What is the Resilience of Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest Patients Who Do Not Receive Bystander Resuscitation?

2015· article· en· W2884446657 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Grunau, Frank Scheuermeyer, Robert Stenstrom, Sarah Pennington, Ron Straight, David Barbic, Jim Christenson

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsIsland HealthProvidence Health CareSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiopulmonary resuscitationLogistic regressionEmergency medicineEmergency medical servicesClinical endpointBystander effectResuscitationPercentileInternal medicineClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Many patients with witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) will not have CPR attempted until emergency medical services (EMS) personnel arrive. The potential for favourable outcomes in patients with increasing no-flow durations is unclear. While some extra-corporeal CPR programs have excluded patients without bystander CPR, others have treated these patients provided short durations to EMS arrival. We sought to describe the outcomes of patients with increasing no-flow durations to determine the potential viability of these patients. Methods: This study examined consecutive non-traumatic OHCA’s collected by a prospective registry in British Columbia (2007 and 2011). We included adult patients with bystander-witnessed OHCA but no attempt at bystander chest compressions. The primary variable of interest was the duration from the bystander 9-1-1 call to the time of CPR commencement by EMS. The primary endpoint was survival at hospital discharge. Multivariable logistic regression, with adjustment for sex, age, public location of arrest, and initial shockable rhythm, was used to assess the association of time to CPR and survival to hospital discharge. Results: Of 6571 EMS-treated OHCA’s, 1062 were included. The median age was 73 (IQR 58-82), 69% were male, and 35% had initial shockable rhythms. Overall survival was 13%. The median time to CPR commencement was 8.5 minutes (IQR 6.9 - 10.5). Time to CPR was independently associated with survival to hospital discharge (adjusted OR 0.85 per minute increase; 95% CI 0.78-0.92). Among survivors, the 90th percentile of time from 9-1-1 call to CPR was 10.3 minutes. Conclusion: In adult OHCA patients, no-flow durations were negatively correlated with outcome, however survival was observed with prolonged durations without CPR extending to 16 minutes. Patients with witnessed OHCA and no bystander CPR include survivors and aggressive resuscitation strategies are warranted.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.262 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→