MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4213286606 · doi:10.1161/circ.138.suppl_2.286

Abstract 286: Chance of Bystander Defibrillation According to Number of Nearby Automated External Defibrillators in Out-Of-Hospital Cardiac Arrests

2018· article· en· W4213286606 on OpenAlexaff
Lena Karlsson, Christopher Sun, Carolina Malta Hansen, Mads Wissenberg, Freddy Lippert, Christian Torp‐Pedersen, Timothy C. Y. Chan, Fredrik Folke

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDefibrillationBystander effectLogistic regressionMedical emergencyEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) for early defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) substantially increases chance of survival. Aim: To examine the relationship between number of nearby accessible AEDs and chance of bystander defibrillation. Methods: All OHCAs (2008-2016), and all publicly available AEDs (2007-2016) in Copenhagen were identified. The route distances between OHCAs and AEDs were calculated to determine the number of accessible AEDs ≤100m of an OHCA (OHCA coverage). Multiple logistic regression was performed to identify the adjusted Odds Ratios (ORs) of OHCA characteristics, including the number of AEDs covering an OHCA, on bystander defibrillation. The regression model was evaluated using receiver operator characteristics (ROC). Multiple logistic regression was also used to determine the predicted probability (through a 2000 iteration bootstrap approach) of bystander defibrillation for public vs. residential OHCAs, according to the number of accessible AEDs covering the OHCA, defined as covered by 0, 1 or >1 AED. Results: There were 1830 AEDs registered in Copenhagen. Of 2500 OHCAs, 75.2% (n=1879) occurred in residential locations of which 98.1% were not covered by an AED, 1.7% were covered by 1 AED only, and 0.2% were covered by >1 AED. The corresponding figures for public OHCAs (n=621, 24.8%) were 87.5%, 9.0%, and 3.5%, respectively. Overall, the number of accessible AEDs covering the OHCA, public location, bystander witnessed arrest and bystander CPR were significantly associated with bystander defibrillation (OR (95%CI): 1.75 (1.24-2.46); 4.25 (2.75-6.57); 3.12 (1.84-5.27); 2.33 (1.44-3.75), respectively. (ROC=82%)). The predicted probability of bystander defibrillation for public OHCAs was 12.2% (95%CI: 9.5-14.9) with no AED covering the OHCA, 24.7% (95%CI: 18.2-31.3) with 1 AED, and 39.8% (95%CI: 23.4-56.7) with >1 AED. The corresponding figures for residential OHCAs were 2.1% (95%CI: 1.5-2.8), 4.3% (95%CI: 2.5-6.8), and 4.0% (95%CI: 0.9-10.8), respectively. Conclusions: Rates of bystander defibrillation significantly improved with increasing number of accessible AEDs covering the OHCA, especially for public OHCAs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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