MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905594939 · doi:10.1001/jama.2018.19842

In-Flight Medical Emergencies

2018· review· en· W2905594939 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christian Martin‐Gill, Thomas J. Doyle, Donald M. Yealy

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTravel-related health issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical emergencyAviationIMesCabin pressurizationMass-casualty incidentAviation medicineEmergency medicineAeronauticsPoison controlInjury prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: In-flight medical emergencies (IMEs) are common and occur in a complex environment with limited medical resources. Health care personnel are often asked to assist affected passengers and the flight team, and many have limited experience in this environment. OBSERVATIONS: In-flight medical emergencies are estimated to occur in approximately 1 per 604 flights, or 24 to 130 IMEs per 1 million passengers. These events happen in a unique environment, with airplane cabin pressurization equivalent to an altitude of 5000 to 8000 ft during flight, exposing patients to a low partial pressure of oxygen and low humidity. Minimum requirements for emergency medical kit equipment in the United States include an automated external defibrillator; equipment to obtain a basic assessment, hemorrhage control, and initiation of an intravenous line; and medications to treat basic conditions. Other countries have different minimum medical kit standards, and individual airlines have expanded the contents of their medical kit. The most common IMEs involve syncope or near-syncope (32.7%) and gastrointestinal (14.8%), respiratory (10.1%), and cardiovascular (7.0%) symptoms. Diversion of the aircraft from landing at the scheduled destination to a different airport because of a medical emergency occurs in an estimated 4.4% (95% CI, 4.3%-4.6%) of IMEs. Protections for medical volunteers who respond to IMEs in the United States include a Good Samaritan provision of the Aviation Medical Assistance Act and components of the Montreal Convention, although the duty to respond and legal protections vary across countries. Medical volunteers should identify their background and skills, perform an assessment, and report findings to ground-based medical support personnel through the flight crew. Ground-based recommendations ultimately guide interventions on board. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In-flight medical emergencies most commonly involve near-syncope and gastrointestinal, respiratory, and cardiovascular symptoms. Health care professionals can assist during these emergencies as part of a collaborative team involving the flight crew and ground-based physicians.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.007

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations104
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicTravel-related health issuesFrench-language works237,207