Cluster randomised comparison of the effectiveness of 100% oxygen versus titrated oxygen in patients with a sustained return of spontaneous circulation following out of hospital cardiac arrest: a feasibility study. PROXY: post ROSC OXYgenation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hyperoxia following out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is associated with a poor outcome. Animal data suggest the first hour post resuscitation may be the most important. In the UK the first hour usually occurs in the prehospital environment. METHODS: A prospective controlled trial, cluster randomised by paramedic, comparing titrated oxygen with 100% oxygen for the first hour after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) following OHCA. The trial was done in a single emergency medical services (EMS) system in the United Kingdom (UK) admitting patients to three emergency departments. This was a feasibility trial to determine whether EMS staff (UK paramedics) can be successfully recruited and deliver the intervention. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty seven paramedics were approached and 46 (29%) were consented, randomised and trained. During the study period 624 patients received a resuscitation attempt. A study paramedic was in attendance at 73 (12%) of these active resuscitations. Thirty-five patients were recruited to the trial, 32 (91%) were transported to hospital and 13 (37%) survived to 90 days. The intervention was initiated in 27/35 (77%) of enrolled patients. A reliable oxygen saturation trace was obtained in 22/35 (69%) of patients. Data collection was complete in 33/35 (94%) of patients. CONCLUSIONS: It may be feasible to complete a randomised trial of titrated versus unrestricted oxygen in the first hour after ROSC following OHCA in the UK. However, the relatively few eligible patients and incomplete initiation of the allocated intervention are challenges to future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 49548506 retrospectively registered on 24.11.2016.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".