El dióxido de carbono al final de la espiración como signo precoz y valor pronóstico de la recuperación de la circulación espontánea en la parada cardiaca extrahospitalaria: una revisión sistemática
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is no clear evidence on the \nmaximum level of end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) predictor \nof the return of spontaneous circulation (RSC) after \nan out-of-hospital cardiorespiratory arrest. The aims \nof this work was to synthesise and analyse the available \nevidence on the usefulness of monitoring values ETCO2 \nin an out-of-hospital cardiorespiratory arrest as an early \nsign and prognostic indicator of the RSC. \nMethods: Systematic review, with narrative synthesis \nof the results, of primary studies published in English \nor Spanish was conducted in Medline, CINAHL, Web \nof Science, EMBASE, Proquest, Scopus, Cochrane, \nÍnDICEs CSIC and CUIDEN of studies that analyse the \nusefulness of monitoring of the level of ETCO2 as a sign \nof the RSC after an out-of-hospital cardiorespiratory \narrest. PRISMA declaration was followed. The risk of \nbias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. \nResults: 1,011 studies were found, eight of which fulfilled \nthe inclusion criteria. The studies reported an association \nbetween the abrupt increase in ETCO2 and RSC to \ndisagree on the predictive cut-off points (an increase than \n10 mmHg and initial values or three minutes greater than \n10 mmHg or 19 mmHg). The studies were of moderate to \nhigh methodological quality. \nConclusions: ETCO2 values correlate with the RSC \nin adults with cardiorespiratory arrest and could predict \nnon-survival, so they should be incorporated into advanced \nlife support algorithms and Utstein-style reports.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".