Global Health and Emergency Care: A Resuscitation Research Agenda—Part 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the 2013 Academic Emergency Medicine global health consensus conference, a breakout session on a resuscitation research agenda was held. Two articles focusing on cardiac arrest and trauma resuscitation are the result of that discussion. This article describes the burden of disease and outcomes, issues in resuscitation research, and global trends in resuscitation research funding priorities. Globally, cardiovascular disease and trauma cause a high burden of disease that receives a disproportionately smaller research investment. International resuscitation research faces unique ethical challenges. It needs reliable baseline statistics regarding quality of care and outcomes; data linkages between providers; reliable and comparable national databases; and an effective, efficient, and sustainable resuscitation research infrastructure to advance the field. Research in resuscitation in low- and middle-income countries is needed to understand the epidemiology, infrastructure and systems context, level of training needed, and potential for cost-effective care to improve outcomes. Research is needed on low-cost models of population-based research, ways to disseminate information to the developing world, and finding the most cost-effective strategies to improve outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".