Red blood cell distribution width for the prediction of outcomes after cardiac arrest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The red blood cell distribution width (RDW) is a routinely available blood marker that measures the variation of the size/volume of red blood cells. The aim of our study was to investigate the prognostic value of RDW in cardiac arrest patients and to assess whether RDW improves the prognostic value of three cardiac arrest-specific risk scores. Consecutive adult cardiac arrest patients admitted to the ICU of a Swiss university hospital were included. The primary outcome was poor neurological outcome at hospital discharge assessed by Cerebral Performance Category. Of 702 patients admitted to the ICU after cardiac arrest, 400 patients (57.0%) survived, of which 323 (80.8%) had a good neurological outcome. Higher mean RDW values showed an independent association with poor neurological outcomes at hospital discharge (adjusted OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.41; p < 0.001). Adding the maximum RDW value to the OHCA- CAHP- and PROLOGUE cardiac arrest scores improved prognostic performance. Within this cohort of cardiac arrest patients, RDW was an independent outcome predictor and slightly improved three cardiac arrest-specific risk scores. RDW may therefore support clinical decision-making.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".