International initiation and termination of resuscitation practices: Protocol of a cross‐sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Substantial variation in survival following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is described both internationally and nationally. The Utstein factors account for half of the variation, but the remaining is not fully understood. Local regulations or guidelines concerning the withholding and termination of resuscitation may influence the reporting of cardiac arrests when comparing outcomes between different Emergency Medical Service systems. METHOD: We have developed an online cross-sectional mixed-methods explanatory design survey aimed at describing the international and national variations in the initiation, the termination of resuscitation, and the refraining from resuscitation of adult patients (>18 years of age) suffering from non-traumatic OHCA. The respondents will be national experts and the questionnaire will be distributed among members of European Prehospital Research Alliance, the International Liaison Committee of Resuscitation, the European Resuscitation Council, and the Resuscitation Academy. Each invited country will have to identify at least two national experts with special expertise in prehospital resuscitation practices. We exclude countries with less than two respondents. RESULTS: The survey will provide both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data will be presented as frequencies and proportions. Qualitative data will be analyzed using content analysis. CONCLUSION: This survey could be of importance in understanding the multiple factors leading to the substantial variation in survival found following OHCA. Furthermore, the interpretation of future studies on OHCA from different settings may be improved to further increase survival following OHCA.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.074 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".