MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4200184239 · doi:10.1161/circ.144.suppl_2.9873

Abstract 9873: Comparing Base Locations for Drone-Delivered Defibrillators

2021· article· en· W4200184239 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kwan Leung, Rahaf Al Assil, Brian Grunau, Jonathan Deakin, Sheldon Cheskes, Jim Christenson, Timothy C. Y. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDroneMedicineMedical emergencyAmbulance serviceAeronauticsEmergency medical servicesEmergency medicineFirefightingCartographyEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Drone-delivered defibrillators may improve response for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Prior studies have assumed that drones may be stationed at any police, fire, or paramedic station; however, cross-service implementation may not be logistically feasible. We sought to compare estimated response times by drone base location type. Methods: We included OHCAs (Jan. 2014 to Dec. 2020) in southern Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada where OHCA response includes fire and paramedic services. We created four models with candidate drone base locations at: police stations, fire stations, paramedic stations, and on a grid with 1 km sides as an optimistic model. We used mathematical optimization to select 1-5 drone bases for each model. Assuming a drone system had been in place during the study period and accounting for drone availability, we estimated 9-1-1 call-to-defibrillator intervals (measured to either drone, paramedic, or fire arrival) and calculated the proportion of OHCAs where a drone would arrive prior to fire and paramedic for each model. Median response times were compared to historical response using one-sided sign tests. Results: We included 1,610 OHCAs with a median historical response time of 6.4 mins (IQR 5.0-8.6). We identified 21 police stations, 59 fire stations, 21 paramedic stations, and 7,008 grid locations in the study area. Median 9-1-1 call-to-defibrillator intervals ranged from 4.3-5.3 mins for police, 4.3-5.3 mins for fire, 4.5-5.4 mins for paramedic, and 4.2-5.4 mins for grid locations (all P<0.001). Drones arrived prior to fire and paramedics in 36.6-65.4% of cases for police, 38.1-66.2% for fire, 37.3-63.2% for paramedic, and 35.7-66.8% for grid locations. Conclusion: Locating drone bases at different types of emergency service stations significantly decreases 9-1-1 call-to-defibrillator intervals, while resulting in similar response intervals to those achieved using optimistic grid-optimal locations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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