MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4213000994 · doi:10.1161/circ.138.suppl_2.185

Abstract 185: Optimization of Public Access Defibrillators Compared to Actual Deployment: An <i>In Silico</i> Trial

2018· article· en· W4213000994 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Sun, Lena Karlsson, Christian Thorp-Pedersen, Fredrik Folke, Timothy C. Y. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalPsychological interventionAutomated external defibrillatorEmergency medicineSoftware deploymentMedical emergencyCardiopulmonary resuscitationInternal medicineComputer scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Unguided placement of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) often leads to placements in low risk areas and locations with limited temporal availability. Mathematical optimization may improve AED placements and increase AED use in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs). Aim: To conduct the first in silico public AED location trial to determine whether optimization models (interventions) trained on historical OHCA data will recommend AED locations that significantly improve OHCA coverage on prospective OHCAs, compared to locations of actually deployed AEDs (control). Methods: We identified all public OHCAs of presumed cardiac cause (1994-2016) and already deployed AEDs (2007-2016) in Copenhagen, Denmark. We computed the number of OHCAs that occurred within 100m of a temporally available AED after it was deployed (“OHCA coverage”). We then divided 2007-2016 into 30-day intervals and determined the number of AEDs deployed in each interval. Using previously validated optimization models, we determined an equal number of optimal AED locations in each time interval, either indoor locations with actual availability (intervention #1) or outdoor locations with 24/7 availability (intervention #2). OHCA coverage was calculated for the interventions similarly to the already deployed AEDs. Finally, we repeated the analysis 25 times to evaluate sensitivity and generate confidence intervals, by randomizing the location and time of the OHCAs. Results: A total of 2,149 public OHCAs (744 between 2007-2016) and 1,573 registered AEDs were identified. OHCA coverage of actually deployed AEDs was 22.3% (166 of 744 OHCAs). For optimally located indoor AEDs, mean OHCA coverage was 32.6% (mean: 242.5 OHCAs; 95% CI: 239.7 - 245.3). For optimally located outdoor AEDs, mean OHCA coverage was 43.9% (mean: 326.6 OHCAs; 95% CI: 324.0 - 329.2). Conclusions: Optimizing AED locations in a real-time deployment approach mimicking the time horizon of actual AED deployment in Copenhagen, Denmark results in significantly higher OHCA coverage compared to the actual AEDs deployed. Between the two interventions, optimal locations that are 24/7 available significantly outperform optimal indoor locations with more limited temporal availability.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.006
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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