MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038920242 · doi:10.1161/jaha.120.016687

Improving Access to Automated External Defibrillators in Rural and Remote Settings: A Drone Delivery Feasibility Study

2020· article· en· W3038920242 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sheldon Cheskes, Shelley McLeod, Michael Nolan, Paul Snobelen, Christian Vaillancourt, Steven C. Brooks, Katie N. Dainty, Timothy C. Y. Chan, Ian R. Drennan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaQueen's UniversityBrampton Civic HospitalSchwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine InstituteNorth York General HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreSinai Health SystemHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDroneSudden cardiac arrestMedical emergencyDefibrillationFirst responderEmergency medical servicesChain of survivalMedicineAmbulance serviceAutomated external defibrillatorBasic life supportAeronauticsEmergency medicineSimulationComputer scienceCardiopulmonary resuscitationResuscitationEngineeringCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Time to treatment is critical for survival from sudden cardiac arrest. Every minute delay in defibrillation results in a 7% to 10% reduction in survival. This is particularly problematic in rural and remote regions, where emergency medical service response is prolonged and automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are often not available. Our primary objective was to examine the feasibility of a novel AED drone delivery method for rural and remote sudden cardiac arrest. A secondary objective was to compare response times between AED drone delivery and ambulance to mock sudden cardiac arrest resuscitations. Methods and Results We conducted 6 simulations in 2 rural communities in southern Ontario, Canada. In the first 2 simulations, the drone and ambulance were dispatched from the same paramedic base. In simulations 3 and 4, the drone and ambulance were dispatched from separate paramedic bases; and in simulations 5 and 6, the drone was dispatched from an optimized location. During each simulation, a "mock" call was placed to 911 and a single AED drone and an ambulance were simultaneously dispatched to a predetermined destination. On scene, trained first responders retrieved the AED from the drone and initiated resuscitative efforts on a mannequin until paramedics arrived. No difficulties were encountered during drone activation by dispatch, ascent, landing, or bystander retrieval of the AED from the drone. During simulations 1 and 2, the distance to the scene was 6.6 km. For simulations 3 and 4, the ambulance response distance increased to 8.8 km while drone remained at 6.6 km; and in simulations 5 and 6, the ambulance response distance was 20 km compared with 9 km for the drone. During each flight, the AED drone arrived on scene before the ambulance, between 1.8 and 8.0 minutes faster. Conclusions This study suggests AED drone delivery is feasible, with the potential for improvements in response time during simulated sudden cardiac arrest scenarios. Further research is required to determine the appropriate system configuration for AED drone delivery in an integrated emergency medical service 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations117
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207