MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886918474 · doi:10.1080/10903127.2018.1511017

Automated External Defibrillator Geolocalization with a Mobile Application, Verbal Assistance or No Assistance: A Pilot Randomized Simulation (AED G-MAP)

2018· article· en· W2886918474 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joel Neves Briard, Frédéric Grou-Boileau, Alaa El Bashtaly, Catherine Spenard, François de Champlain, Valérie Homier

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital Emergency Care · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAutomated external defibrillatorMedical emergencyRandomized controlled trialDefibrillationPilot trialEmergency medical servicesCardiopulmonary resuscitationEmergency medicineResuscitationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Shockable rythms are common among victims of witnessed public out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), but bystander defibrillation with a public automated external defibrillator (PAED) is rare. Instructions from the emergency medical dispatcher and mobile applications were developed to expedite the localization of PAEDs, but their effectiveness has not been compared. METHODS: Participants were enrolled in a three-armed randomized simulation where they witnessed a simulated OHCA on a university campus, were instructed to locate a PAED and provide defibrillation. Participants were stratified and randomized to: (1) no assistance in finding the PAED, (2) assistance from a geolocalization mobile application (AED-Quebec), or (3) verbal assistance. Data collectors tracked each participant's time elapsed and distance traveled to shock. RESULTS: Of the 52 volunteers participating in the study (46% male, mean age 37), 17 were randomized to the no assistance group, 18 to the mobile application group and 17 to the verbal group. Median (IQR) time to shock was, respectively, 10:00 min (7:49-10:00), 9:44 (6:30-10:00), and 5:23 (4:11-9:08), with statistically significant differences between the verbal group and the other groups (p ≤ 0.01). The success rate for defibrillation in <10 minutes was 35%, 56% and 76%. Multivariate regression of all participants pooled showed that knowledge of campus geography was the strongest predictor of shock in <10 minutes (aOR =14.3, 95% CI 1.85-99.9). Among participants without prior geographical knowledge, verbal assistance provided a trend towards decreased time to shock, but the differences over no assistance (7:28 vs. 10:00, p = 0.10) and over the mobile app (7:28 vs. 10:00, p = 0.11) were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In a simulated environment, verbally providing OHCA bystanders with the nearest PAED's location appeared to be effective in reducing the time to defibrillation in comparison to no assistance and to an AED geolocalizing mobile app, but further research is required to confirm this hypothesis, ascertain the external validity of these results, and evaluate the real-life implications of these strategies.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations28
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrehospital Emergency CareSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207