Protocol for outcome reporting and follow-up in the Targeted Hypothermia versus Targeted Normothermia after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest trial (TTM2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The TTM2-trial is a multi-centre randomised clinical trial where targeted temperature management (TTM) at 33 °C will be compared with normothermia and early treatment of fever (≥37.8 °C) after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA). This paper presents the design and rationale of the TTM2-trial follow-up, where information on secondary and exploratory outcomes will be collected. We also present the explorative outcome analyses which will focus on neurocognitive function and societal participation in OHCA-survivors. METHODS: Blinded outcome-assessors will perform follow-up at 30-days after the OHCA with a telephone interview, including the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE). Face-to-face meetings will be performed at 6 and 24-months, and include reports on outcome from several sources of information: clinician-reported: mRS, GOSE; patient-reported: EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Level responses version (EQ-5D-5L), Life satisfaction, Two Simple Questions; observer-reported: Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly-Cardiac Arrest version (IQCODE-CA) and neurocognitive performance measures: Montreal Cognitive Assessment, (MoCA), Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). Exploratory analyses will be performed with an emphasis on brain injury in the survivors, where the two intervention groups will be compared for potential differences in neuro-cognitive function (MoCA, SDMT) and societal participation (GOSE). Strategies to increase inter-rater reliability and decrease missing data are described. DISCUSSION: The TTM2-trial follow-up is a pragmatic yet detailed pre-planned and standardised assessment of patient's outcome designed to ensure data-quality, decrease missing data and provide optimal conditions to investigate clinically relevant effects of TTM, including OHCA-survivors' neurocognitive function and societal participation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".