MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7071493685

Safety of Long Distance Aeromedical Transport of the Cardiac Patient

2001· dissertation· en· W7071493685 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2001
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAir transportMyocardial infarctionChest painAviation medicineIncidence (geometry)Emergency medical services
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although long distance aeromedical transport of cardiac patients occurs with increasing frequency, data regarding the incidence of complications are lacking and guidelines for air ambulance transport are nonexistent. The purpose of this thesis is to evaluate the safety of long distance aeromedical transport of cardiac patients, and to recommend a time frame for air ambulance transport of patients post myocardial infarction. An analysis of all long distance aeromedical transports performed by Montreal-based Skyservice Lifeguard from 9811/1 to 98110/1 is presented. 109 cardiac patients were transported; 83 by air ambulance and 26 commercially. All inflight complications were minor and resolved quickly. After analysis of the results, it is concluded that air ambulance transport of cardiac patients can safely be performed earlier than guidelines for commercial flights. Air ambulance transport appears safe post complicated myocardial infarction by day 7 or >72 hours chest pain free, and post uncomplicated myocardial infarction by day 3 or >48 hours chest pain free. Future guidelines for aeromedical transport of patients post myocardial infarction should distinguish between air ambulance and commercial flights.

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)0.006
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies→French-language works237,207→