MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The impact of drone delivery of an automated external defibrillator: a simulation feasibility study

2025· article· en· W4411222464 on OpenAlexaff
Owen Finney, Kate Snowdon, Sara Lomzynska, Danielle Ferraresi, Michael Norton, David Austin, Chris P Gale, Chris Wilkinson, Graham McClelland

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Paramedic Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDroneAutomated external defibrillatorComputer scienceComputer securityMedicineEmergency medicineCardiopulmonary resuscitationBiologyResuscitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a leading cause of death in Europe. Early defibrillation is associated with improved outcomes. While this may be delivered by members of the public using an automated external defibrillator (AED), they are used infrequently. Drone delivery of an AED may enable quicker defibrillation compared to awaiting arrival of emergency medical services. Little is known about how members of the public may react to AED delivery or about the potential impact of retrieving an AED on the provision of high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Methods: A feasibility study using a simulated OHCA scenario was completed by members of the public. Participants performed CPR on a manikin, guided by an ambulance service call handler, which was interrupted by AED delivery. CPR quality and the duration of the interruption for AED retrieval were recorded, and participants' feedback on the scenario was collected using a survey. Results: Twelve participants completed the study. Overall, a median of 61% (interquartile range [IQR] 21-79) of chest compressions were delivered at the correct speed, and 99% (IQR 78-100) at the correct depth. CPR was discontinued for a median of 116 (96-135) seconds to retrieve an AED and deliver a shock. Participants described the scenario as stressful and challenging, were supportive of the concept of AED delivery by drone and emphasised the value of call-handler instructions and guidance. Conclusion: This study demonstrated the feasibility of a process and outcomes evaluation of simulated drone-delivered AED to members of the public. The retrieval process was associated with notable interruption in the delivery of CPR, but it remains unknown whether any impact of this may be offset by expedited use of the AED. Understanding the likely overall impact of drone delivery of AEDs on patient outcomes is critical before this approach should be considered in clinical practice.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Paramedic JournalSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207