MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391206233 · doi:10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100554

Challenges & barriers for real-time integration of drones in emergency cardiac care: Lessons from the United States, Sweden, & Canada

2024· article· en· W4391206233 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueResuscitation Plus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institutes of HealthHjärt-LungfondenZOLL Medical Corporation
KeywordsDroneChain of survivalMedical emergencyDefibrillationMedicineEmergency medical servicesCardiopulmonary resuscitationAviationAeronauticsBasic life supportBusinessEngineeringEmergency medicineResuscitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the US and Europe (∼600,000 incident events annually) and around the world (∼3.8 million). With every minute that passes without cardiopulmonary resuscitation or defibrillation, the probability of survival decreases by 10%. Preliminary studies suggest that uncrewed aircraft systems, also known as drones, can deliver automated external defibrillators (AEDs) to OHCA victims faster than ground transport and potentially save lives. Objective: To date, the United States (US), Sweden, and Canada have made significant contributions to the knowledge base regarding AED-equipped drones. The purpose of this Special Communication is to explore the challenges and facilitators impacting the progress of AED-equipped drone integration into emergency medicine research and applications in the US, Sweden, and Canada. We also explore opportunities to propel this innovative and important research forward. Evidence review: In this narrative review, we summarize the AED-drone research to date from the US, Sweden, and Canada, including the first drone-assisted delivery of an AED to an OHCA. Further, we compare the research environment, emergency medical systems, and aviation regulatory environment in each country as they apply to OHCA, AEDs, and drones. Finally, we provide recommendations for advancing research and implementation of AED-drone technology into emergency care. Findings: The rates that drone technologies have been integrated into both research and real-life emergency care in each country varies considerably. Based on current research, there is significant potential in incorporating AED-equipped drones into the chain of survival for OHCA emergency response. Comparing the different environments and systems in each country revealed ways that each can serve as a facilitator or barrier to future AED-drone research. Conclusions and relevance: The US, Sweden, and Canada each offers different challenges and opportunities in this field of research. Together, the international community can learn from one another to optimize integration of AED-equipped drones into emergency systems of care.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.287 · 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