Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of the review is to briefly describe the derivation, validation and implementation of the Termination of Resuscitation Rules for out-of-hospital adult cardiac arrest and to describe the controversies surrounding implementation that have been recently published. RECENT FINDINGS: New guidelines, new interventions that alter baseline survival, the use of eCPR and issues related to duration of CPR have minimal impact on the sustainability and application of the TOR rule.Some published articles related to using only one criterion in the rule may be cavalier and miss potential survivors.Decisions based on discretion may cause wide variation in termination rates and evidence-based decision rules are in the best interest of distributive justice for the patient and comfort for the provider. SUMMARY: The Universal Termination of Resuscitation Rule has a built-in sensibility to the introduction of new treatment guidelines, including emphasis on CPR metrics, changes in baseline survival rates, duration of resuscitation and new treatment options including eCPR and postarrest care. As well, the TOR rule continues to address inconsistencies in practice and improve provider comfort.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".