Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in Brazilian medical television shows: a descriptive and quality assessment study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of Brazilian television depictions of cardiopulmonary arrest, their management, and outcomes and to compare the observed outcomes with prior data from observational studies. METHODS: Investigators screened episodes, identified cardiac arrest scenes, collected relevant information, and assessed outcomes. Cardiac arrest scenes were then analyzed using the American Heart Association guidelines. The primary outcome was survival with favorable neurologic outcomes. Secondary outcomes were the return of spontaneous circulation and the number of Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support deviations in each event. RESULTS: Fifty-nine cardiac arrests were included in the study. Death occurred in 55.9% of patients, and return of spontaneous circulation was obtained in 54.2%. Survival rate was 44.1%, and 42.4% of the patients had favorable neurologic outcomes. Adherence to Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support guidelines did not demonstrate a significant impact on survival with favorable neurological outcomes, as evidenced by comparable odds ratios (0.86 [95%CI 0.22 - 2.36] for 3 - 5 deviations and 0.69 [95%CI 0.07 - 5.93] for ≥ 6 deviations using 0 - 2 deviations as reference). Television shows depicted a significantly higher proportion of favorable outcomes than real-world Brazilian cohorts for out-of-hospital and in-hospital scenarios (50% versus 20.5%, p = 0.107; and 43.3% versus 17.4%, p < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSION: In Brazilian television shows, the portrayal of cardiopulmonary resuscitation is inaccurate and tends to overstate the likelihood of favorable outcomes following cardiac arrests.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".