MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2986809949 · doi:10.1161/circ.140.suppl_2.147

Abstract 147: AED on the Fly: A Drone Delivery Feasibility Study for Rural and Remote Out-Of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

2019· article· en· W2986809949 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sheldon Cheskes, Paul Snobelen, Shelley McLeod, Steven C. Brooks, Christian Vaillancourt, Timothy C. Y. Chan, Katie N. Dainty, Mike Nolan

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsNorth York General HospitalOttawa Public HealthQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDroneMedicineFirst responderAutomated external defibrillatorDefibrillationSudden cardiac arrestMedical emergencyEmergency medical servicesChain of survivalBasic life supportCardiopulmonary resuscitationEmergency medicineResuscitationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Time-to-treatment plays a pivotal role in survival from sudden cardiac arrest (SCA). Every minute of delay in defibrillation results in a 7-10% reduction in survival. Time to defibrillation is particularly problematic in rural and remote regions, where traditional bystander and EMS response is often prolonged and automated external defibrillators (AED) are often not available. The objective of this study was to examine the feasibility of a novel AED drone delivery method for rural and remote SCA. A secondary objective was to compare times between AED drone delivery and ambulance response to various mock SCA resuscitations. Methods: We conducted four simulations to determine the feasibility of AED drone delivery to mock SCA resuscitations in a rural public setting in Ontario, Canada. During each simulation, a “mock” call was placed to 911 and a single AED drone and an ambulance were simultaneously dispatched from the same location to a pre-determined destination for a mock SCA. Once on scene, trained first responders retrieved the AED from the drone and initiated resuscitative efforts on a manikin until paramedics arrived. Results: The distance from dispatch location to scene varied from 6.6 kms to 8.8 kms. Mean (SD) response time from 911 call to arrive at mock code location was 11.2 (1.0) for EMS compared to 8.1 (0.1) minutes for AED drone delivery. In all four simulations, the AED drone arrived before EMS, ranging from 2.1 minutes to 4.4 minutes faster. Mean (SD) time from AED removal from drone to application to manikin by a trained responder was 35(5) sec. No difficulties were encountered in drone activation by dispatch, drone lift off, landing or removal of the AED from the drone by responders. Conclusions: This implementation study suggests AED drone delivery is feasible with improvements in response time during a simulated SCA scenario. These results suggest the potential for AED drone delivery to decrease time to first defibrillation in rural and remote communities. Further research is required to determine the appropriate distance for drone delivery of an AED in an integrated EMS system as well as optimal strategies to simplify bystander application of a drone delivered AED.

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)0.003
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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→