MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 4139585: Differences in Health Care Utilization Prior to Cardiac Arrest Among Patients with Shockable versus Non-Shockable Rhythms

2024· article· en· W4404364039 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Burden, Marc W. Deyell, Nathaniel M. Hawkins, Meijiao Guan, Jennie Helmer, Brian Grunau, Christopher B. Fordyce

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsIsland HealthUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency medicineRhythmMedical emergencyIntensive care medicineGerontologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Health care utilization has been shown to be high prior to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). However, differences in patterns of health care utilization between OHCA presenting with shockable and non-shockable rhythms have not been explored. Hypothesis: Health care interactions prior to cardiac arrest are more common among those presenting with non-shockable rhythms, a large proportion of which may be a manifestation of chronic disease progression. Aim: To examine health care utilization prior to OHCA and the differences between patients presenting with shockable and non-shockable rhythms, in comparison to population controls. Methods: This was a matched case-control study. Cardiac arrests from 2009-2019 were identified in the British Columbia Cardiac Arrest Registry. Age, sex and geographic population controls were identified. We examined health care utilization in the 3 years prior to cardiac arrest. Results: A total of 3,461 shockable and 11,470 non-shockable OHCA patients were identified and matched 4:1 to 45,871 controls. The rate of hospitalization in the 3 years prior was 57% in the shockable group (39.5% in controls, OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.53-1.79) and 61.5% in the non-shockable group (39.5% in controls, OR 2.67, 95% CI 2.55-2.79). Overall hospitalizations were more common in both OHCA compared to controls, while non-cardiovascular (CV) admissions were greater for the non-shockable versus shockable groups ( Figure ). When examining bi-weekly rates of hospital and ER visits leading up to OHCA, both groups had increased CV encounters arising at 10 weeks prior to arrest, whereas the non-shockable group had greater non-CV encounters as compared to the shockable group. Conclusion: Shockable and non-shockable OHCA show high rates of health care utilization leading up to cardiac arrest, which may provide opportunities for intervention. Differences between the shockable and non-shockable groups may reflect underlying pathophysiology, which has implications for prevention of OHCA.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→