MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7027064902

Bystander administered AED shock improves survival from out of hospital cardiac arrest in US and Canada

2007· other· en· W7027064902 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueGriffith Research Online (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia) · 2007
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDefibrillationBystander effectCardiopulmonary resuscitationAutomated external defibrillatorLogistic regressionChain of survivalEmergency medical servicesCohort
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) trial showed that training and equipping lay volunteers to use an automated external defibrillator (AED) in community settings doubled the number of survivors after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) compared to training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) alone. The effectiveness of contemporary community-based PAD programs is unknown. Hypotheses: Bystander defibrillation before arrival of emergency medical services (EMS) personnel improves survival. Methods: Design-Population-based cohort study. Setting- 11 US and Canadian urban and rural sites participating in the ROC, a prehospital emergency care trials network. Inclusions- Individuals with non-traumatic OOHCA from 12/1/2005 to 11/30/2006, evaluated by organized EMS personnel who received attempted defibrillation before or after EMS arrival or chest compressions by EMS. Analyses-Multivariate logistic regression assessed the association between PAD and survival to hospital discharge. Results: Of 9897 EMS-treated OOHCA, 2991 (30.4%) received bystander CPR and 249 (2.5%) had AED placed by bystander. Overall survival to hospital discharge was 7%. Survival with bystander CPR but no AED, 8%; with AED applied by a bystander 21%; with bystander AED shock delivered, 33%; with EMS shock only, 15%. AED was applied by Lay Volunteers (32%), Police (24%), Healthcare Workers (42%), or Unknown (2%). The association between AED application and survival to hospital discharge was adjusted for age, gender, bystander CPR, public location, EMS response time and bystander witnessed status using multivariate logistic regression. After controlling for these factors, AED application was significantly associated with survival (O.R. 2.21 95% CI 1.41 – 3.47, P < .001). Conclusions: Survival benefits demonstrated in the PAD trial can translate to improved survival in community-based programs. Extrapolating this greater survival from ROC population base (20 million) to the population of US and Canada (330 million) suggests that currently AED application by bystanders saves 412 lives per year. Contemporary PAD programs have a substantial impact on survival from cardiac arrest but impact may be limited by penetration of PAD into the community.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGriffith Research Online (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia)French-language works237,207