Gender differences in the provision of key post-arrest interventions for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients—protocol for a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence shows that the implementation of optimal post-arrest care significantly increases survival and functional outcomes among patients who experience an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). However, differences in OHCA survival have been reported between men and women, suggesting underlying differences in post-arrest care. This systematic review will evaluate gender differences in the provision of key post-arrest interventions. METHODS: Eligible studies will be identified through systematic searches of relevant databases. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies of adult patients will be eligible for inclusion if they report gender-specific data on the provision of one or more guideline-based post-arrest interventions in OHCA patients who survived to hospital admission. Two independent reviewers will perform both the title and abstract and full-text screening along with data abstraction for the selected studies. Study quality will be assessed using a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs or the ROBINS-I tool for observational studies. The strength of evidence for each included study will be assessed using a modified Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this systematic review will be the first to address the association between patient gender and the provision of post-arrest care. The findings from this systematic review will provide valuable insight to gender disparities in the provision of post-arrest care. This systematic review was designed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. This protocol observes the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42012003096.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".