Evaluation of basic life support interventions for foreign body airway obstructions: A population-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To quantify the associations of foreign body airway obstruction (FBAO) basic life support (BLS) interventions with FBAO relief and survival to discharge. METHODS: We identified prehospital FBAO patient encounters in Alberta, Canada between Jan 1, 2018 and Dec 31,2021 using the provincial emergency medical services' medical records, deterministically linked to hospital data. Two physicians reviewed encounters to determine cases and extract data. Multivariable logistic regression determined the adjusted odds ratio of FBAO relief (primary outcome) and survival to discharge for the exposure of BLS interventions (abdominal thrusts [AT], chest compressions/thrusts [CC], or combinations) relative to back blows [BB]. Intervention-associated injuries were identified using International Classification of Diseases codes, followed by health records review. RESULTS: We identified 3,677 patient encounters, including 709 FBAOs requiring intervention. Bystanders performed the initial BLS intervention in 488 cases (77.4%). Bystanders and paramedics did not relieve the FBAO in 151 (23.5%) and 11 (16.7%) cases, respectively. FBAOs not relieved before paramedic arrival had a higher proportion of deaths (n = 4[0.4%] versus n = 92[42.4%], p < 0.001). AT and CC were associated with decreased odds of FBAO relief relative to BB (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.49 [95%CI 0.30-0.80] and 0.14 [95%CI 0.07-0.28], respectively). CC were associated with decreased odds of survival to discharge (aOR 0.04 [95%CI 0.01-0.32]). AT, CC, and BB were implicated in intervention-associated injuries in four, nine, and zero cases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Back blows are associated with improved outcomes compared to abdominal thrusts and chest compressions. These data can inform prospective studies aimed at improving response to choking emergencies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".