MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154137421 · doi:10.1097/mcc.0000000000000831

Immediate postcardiac arrest treatment: coronary catherization or not?

2021· review· en· W3154137421 on OpenAlexaff
Florence Dumas, Wulfran Bougouin, Alain Cariou

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Critical Care · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReturn of spontaneous circulationMedicineSudden cardiac deathIntensive care medicineSudden cardiac arrestInternal medicineCardiologyResuscitationSurgeryCardiopulmonary resuscitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Early coronary angiogram (CAG) remains a cornerstone in postcardiac arrest management as coronary disease (CAD)-related cardiac arrest is the leading cause of sudden death in adults. The opportunity to treat the cause early on with immediate CAG may improve outcome in cardiac arrest patients with AMI. Identifying the patients who will benefit from such an early invasive strategy is an unanswered question. Recent and ongoing trials may improve the level of evidence on this problematic, especially for some subgroup; however, current guidelines remain founded upon a very heterogeneous level of evidence. RECENT FINDINGS: The key variable to argue for immediate CAD remains the pattern of the ECG monitored after return of spontaneous of circulation (ROSC). ST-segment elevation (STE) on postresuscitation ECG is the strongest argument to rule for an early CAG strategy. In other situations, identifying the best candidates for early CAG is very challenging. Different approaches including elements, such as circumstances of cardiac arrest and expected outcomes. may also drive the strategy. SUMMARY: This review aims to provide an overview of these different discussion points. The indication for early CAG should rely on multiple factors and an individual approach.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.282 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Critical CareSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207