Double sequential defibrillation: is it ready for prime time?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Refractory ventricular fibrillation, which fails to respond to defibrillation, is associated with poor survival. Despite this, there are no treatments that are proven effective beyond standard defibrillation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Double sequential external defibrillation (DSED) has been proposed as an alternative defibrillation strategy for this patient population. In this review, we will discuss key evidence surrounding DSED, as we present two opposing arguments, 'pro' that DSED is ready for clinical practice and 'con' that more research is needed prior to implementation of this technique. RECENT FINDINGS: The Double Sequential External Defibrillation for Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation (DOSE VF) randomized clinical trial demonstrated improved patient outcomes for patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation who did not respond to standard defibrillation attempts. There remain unanswered questions with respect to the mechanism by which DSED may improve outcomes and the logistics of implementation into clinical practice. SUMMARY: This article discusses some of the key controversies surrounding DSED and whether this novel defibrillation strategy is ready for integration into standard practice. Further research is ongoing that may help to answer further questions related to the utility of DSED.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
| grok | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
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".