MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3101331450 · doi:10.1161/circ.142.suppl_4.329

Abstract 329: Predicting Survival from Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest

2020· article· en· W3101331450 on OpenAlexaff
Ian R. Drennan, Kevin E. Thorpe, Sheldon Cheskes, Muhammad Mamdani, Damon C. Scales, Laurie J. Morrison

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReturn of spontaneous circulationReceiver operating characteristicOdds ratioCardiopulmonary resuscitationInternal medicineConfidence intervalLogistic regressionCardiologyEmergency medicineResuscitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Prognostication is a significant challenge early in the post-cardiac arrest period. Common prognostic factors for neurological survival are unreliable (high false positive rates) until 72 hours post-cardiac arrest. It is not known whether there are a combination of factors that can be utilized earlier in the post-cardiac arrest period to accurately predict patient outcome. Our objective was to predict neurological outcome utilizing a novel combination of patient factors early in the post-cardiac arrest period. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from our local registry. We included adult patients who obtained a return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). We excluded patients who did not survive for at least 24 hours post-ROSC and those who had a do not resuscitate (DNR) order within 2 hours of ROSC. We performed an ordinal regression analysis using the proportional odds model to predict neurological outcome (modified rankin score (mRS)). We included a good neurological outcome (mRS 0-2), poor neurological outcome (mRS 3-5), and dead (mRS 6) as an ordinal outcome. We included a number of patient demographics, intra- and post-cardiac arrest factors as covariates in our model. The predictive performance of our model was analyzed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for discrimination and Brier statistic for calibration. Results: We included 3448 patients in our analysis. We found that an initial shockable rhythm (odds ratio (OR) 4.1; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.6, 5.4), the absence of pupillary reflexes (OR 3.5; 95% CI 2.4,4.8) and maximum motor score on the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.4,1.6) had the greatest association with improved neurologic outcome. Longer duration of resuscitation was associate with worse outcomes (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82,0.87). The overall performance of our model was excellent with an area under the ROC curve of 0.89 and a Brier statistic of 0.13. Conclusion: Our model predicted good neurological outcome with a high rate of accuracy, however external validation of the model is required. This model may be useful to provide risk stratification of patients in clinical practice and future research on post-cardiac arrest care.

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)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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