MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886956852 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-ems.61

61 Aed accessibility and bystander defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

2018· article· en· W2886956852 on OpenAlexaff
Lena Karlsson, CLF Sun, Christian Torp‐Pedersen, FK Lippert, TCY Chan, Fredrik Folke

Bibliographic record

VenueAbstracts · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineDefibrillationInterquartile rangeMedical emergencyEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim Inaccessibility of publicly available automated external defibrillators (AEDs) is an issue recently emphasised;1,2 however, knowledge of the impact of inaccessibility on bystander defibrillation remains sparse. Method We identified all public out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) registered by the Copenhagen Mobile Emergency Care Unit physicians (2008–2016), and all publicly available AEDs in Copenhagen (2007–2016) from the Danish AED Network. All recorded OHCAs and AEDs were geocoded, and the true route distances between OHCAs and AEDs were calculated. A covered OHCA was defined as an OHCA with an AED located ≤200 m and AED accessibility was assessed for every AED at the exact time of OHCA. Results In total, 1,830 AEDs were registered in Copenhagen. Out of 643 public OHCAs, 261 (40.6%) were covered by a registered AED ≤200 m (median distance: 107.6 m (interquartile range [IQR]: 58.6–146.7)). Of the covered OHCAs, 156 (59.8%) occurred ≤200 m of an accessible AED, and in 105 OHCAs (40.2%) the AED was inaccessible. Compared with OHCAs near an inaccessible AED, OHCAs near an accessible AED were more likely to receive bystander defibrillation (25.0% vs 13.3%, p=0.02) and achieve 30 day survival (49.7% vs 38.0%, p=0.08). Conclusion The chances of receiving bystander defibrillation nearly doubled if the OHCA was covered by an accessible AED ≤200 m, and the proportion of cases that achieved 30 day survival tended to be higher compared to OHCA cases covered by an inaccessible AED. References . Sun CL, Demirtas D, Brooks SC, Morrison LJ, Chan TC. Overcoming spatial and temporal barriers to public access defibrillators via optimisation. J Am Coll Cardiol2016;68(8):836–45. . Hansen CM, Wissenberg M, Weeke P, Ruwald MH, Lamberts M, Lippert FK, Gislason GH, Nielsen SL, Kober L, Torp-Pedersen C, Folke F. Automated external defibrillators inaccessible to more than half of nearby cardiac arrests in public locations during evening, nighttime, and weekends. Circulation2013;128(20):2224–31. Conflict of interest None Funding Dr. L. Karlsson is supported by a fund from The Danish foundation TrygFonden, who has no influence on study design; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data.

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)0.008
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAbstractsSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207