MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210292423 · doi:10.1002/clc.4960270217

Progress in clinical trials

2004· article· en· W4210292423 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cardiology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCitationClinical trialLibrary sciencePathologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Over 460,000 Americans die each year from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOH-CA).About 20% of these occur in public places.Objective: PAD sought to determine whether laypersons trained and equipped to call 911, perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and use automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in public and residential locations, compared to laypersons trained only to call 911 and perform CPR, could increase survival for patients experiencing OOH-CA.Study design: Investigators identified and randomized 993 community units in 24 U.S. and Canadian cities with a predefined increased risk of OOH-CA.Volunteers were identified and trained to respond to OOH-CA using CPR only (497 sites) or CPR+AED (496 sites).The AED volunteers were trained to use the device within a 3-min time span.A total of 19,762 nonmedical volunteer rescuers consented to participate.Physicians, nurses, emergency medical technicians, firefighters, and police were excluded.More than 1,600 AEDs were put in place in the following types of locations: shopping (24%), recreation (24%), multi-unit residential (15%), entertainment (9%), community centers (7%), office complexes (7%), and other (14%).The primary patient population was defined as individuals (age ≥ 8 years) with confirmed, treatable OOH-CA of cardiac etiology.The primary endpoint was the number of patients surviving through hospital discharge.Results: In CPR-only units, 1,593 events were reported (presumed cardiac arrests [CA] = 228, definite CAs = 103).In CPR+AED units, there were 1,819 events (presumed CAs = 240, definite CAs = 129).In the CPR-only group,15 individuals survived to hospital discharge.In the CPR+AED group, 29 survived to hospital discharge (p = 0.042).Survival in residential units was low, with 1 in each group.Volunteer and patient adverse events were very few (serious 0.1% CPR-only, 0% CPR+AED, NS; mild-moderate 0.1% CPR-only, 0.4% CPR+AED, NS).Conclusions: Trained laypersons can use AEDs safely to provide early defibrillation.Survival nearly doubles when AEDs are added to CPR-trained, volunteer, OOH-CA response systems in public facilities with predefined increased risk.

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)0.234
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2340.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.005

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 head0.828
GPT teacher head0.644
Teacher spread0.185 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical CardiologySame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207