MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ten Steps Toward Improving In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Quality of Care and Outcomes

2023· article· en· W4388539815 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul S. Chan, Robert Greif, Theresa Dirndorfer Anderson, Huba Atiq, Thomaz Bittencourt Couto, Julie Considine, Allan R. de Caen, Therese Djärv, Ann Doll, Matthew J. Douma, Dana P. Edelson, Feng Xu, Judith Finn, Grace Firestone, Saket Girotra, Kasper Glerup Lauridsen, Carrie Kah‐Lai Leong, Swee Han Lim, Peter T. Morley, Laurie J. Morrison, Ari Moskowitz, Mullasari Ajit Sankardas, Michelle Myburgh, Vinay Nadkarni, Robert W. Neumar, Jerry P. Nolan, Justine Athieno Odakha, Theresa M. Olasveengen, Judit Orosz, Gavin D. Perkins, Jeanette K. Previdi, Christian Vaillancourt, William Montgomery, Comilla Sasson, Brahmajee K. Nallamothu

Bibliographic record

VenueResuscitation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of OttawaStollery Children's Hospital
FundersNational Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration WestU.S. Department of DefenseAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityNational Institutes of HealthLaerdal Foundation for Acute MedicineUniversity Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS TrustBritish Heart FoundationNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchZOLL Medical CorporationEuropean Resuscitation CouncilAmerican Heart AssociationNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineScopusResuscitationIncidence (geometry)GuidelineCardiopulmonary resuscitationIntensive careAuditEmergency medicineMedical emergencyMEDLINEIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Committee on Resuscitation, Resuscitation Councils of Asia, Indian Resuscitation Council Federation, and the collaborating organization, International Federation of Red Cross. The Ten Steps Toward Improving In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Quality of Care and Outcomes in this document (Fig. These steps represent the consensus of a Writing Group of >30 interprofessional experts drawn from various branches of medicine, nursing, and allied health care professions.

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)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0060.011
Research integrity0.0080.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations57
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResuscitationSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207