MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390820025 · doi:10.1016/j.resplu.2023.100547

Wolf creek XVII part 4: Amplifying lay-rescuer response

2024· review· en· W4390820025 on OpenAlexaff
Katie N. Dainty, Yih Yng Ng, Pin Pin Pek, Rudolph W. Koster, Marcus Eng Hock Ong

Bibliographic record

VenueResuscitation Plus · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsNorth York General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionAction (physics)Public relationsEmergency responsePsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceMedical educationNursingMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Amplifying lay-rescuer response is a key priority to increase survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). We describe the current state of lay-rescuer response, how we envision the future, and the gaps, barriers, and research priorities that will amplify response to OHCA. Methods: 'Amplifying Lay-Rescuer Response' was one of six focus topics for the Wolf Creek XVII Conference held on June 14-17, 2023, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. Conference invitees included international thought leaders and scientists in the field of cardiac arrest resuscitation from academia and industry. Participants submitted via online survey knowledge gaps, barriers to translation and research priorities for each focus topic. Expert panels used the survey results and their own perspectives and insights to create and present a preliminary unranked list for each category that was debated, revised and ranked by all attendees to identify the top 5 for each category. Results: The top five knowledge gaps as ranked by the panel, reflected a recognition of the need to better understand the psycho-social aspects of lay response. The top five barriers to translation reflected issues at the individual, community, societal, structural, and governmental levels. The top five research priorities were focused on understanding the social/psychological and emotional barriers to action, finding the most effective/cost-effective strategies to educate lay persons and implement community life-saving interventions, evaluation of new technological solutions and how to enhance the role of dispatch working with lay-rescuers. Conclusion: Future research in lay rescuer response should incorporate technology innovations, understand the "humanity" of the situation, leverage implementation science and systems thinking to save lives. This will require the field of resuscitation to engage with scholars outside our traditional ranks and to be open to new ways of thinking about old problems.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0700.016

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.314 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResuscitation PlusSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207