Cardiovascular risk assessment in divers: Toward safer diving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Similar to aviation, diving is performed in an environment in which acute incapacitation may lead to a fatal outcome. In aeromedicine, a pilot is considered "unfit to fly" when the cardiovascular event risk exceeds one percent per annum, the so-called 1% rule. In diving no formal limits to cardiovascular risk have been established. Cardiovascular risk of divers can be calculated using the modified Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) Risk of Harm formula: risk of harm (RH: cardiovascular fatality rate per year during diving: number × 10-⁵/divers/year) = time diving (TD: number of dives × 10-⁴) × sudden cardiac incapacitation (SCI: cardiovascular diver event rate per year (number × 10-⁵/year). The SCI and thus the RH are strongly dependent on age. Using the CCS criterion for RH, 5 × 10-⁵ divers/year, and considering an average of 25 dives per year per diver, the calculated maximum acceptable SCI is 2%/year, consistent with current practice for dive medical examinations. If the SCI were to exceed 2%/year, a diver could be considered "unfit to dive," which could particularly benefit older (≥ 50 years) divers, in whom cardiovascular risk factors are often not properly treated. For the prevention of fatal diving accidents due to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, a dive medical examination is of limited value for young (≺ 50 years) divers who have no cardiovascular risk factors. Introducing a cardiovascular risk management system for divers may achieve a reduction in fatal diving accidents that result from cardiovascular disease in older divers engaged in both recreational and professional diving.
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 | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".