Long-Term Outcomes After Cardiac Arrest: Protocol for the Extended Follow-Up Sub-Study of the STEPCARE Trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The international multi-center randomized controlled STEPCARE-trial will investigate optimal management of sedation, temperature, and mean arterial pressure (MAP) during intensive care in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients due to various etiologies. The primary outcome is mortality at 6 months. This protocol describes an extended follow-up sub-study of the STEPCARE-trial with the main objective to provide detailed long-term outcomes for survivors and caregivers. It will focus on potential neuroprotection and improved recovery for different targets of sedation, temperature, and MAP management at 6 and 12 months post-OHCA.Methods All survivors and one caregiver per survivor at selected STEPCARE sites will be invited to participate. Randomization is stratified by site. This sub-study extends the main STEPCARE follow-up at 6 months by undertaking detailed assessments, face-to-face meetings, inclusion of a caregiver, and repeating the assessments at 12 months. Our main outcome for survivors is cognitive function measured by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and for caregivers, the caregiver burden measured by the Zarit Burden Interview. Additional outcomes include symptoms of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, fatigue, physical function, life satisfaction, and life impact (disability), assessed by psychometrically robust measures. The estimated sample size is 600. Efforts to improve interrater reliability and decrease missing data are integral to the study design.Conclusion These detailed long-term outcomes will explore the possible benefits or risks of fever, sedation, and blood pressure management in post-OHCA survivors. Additionally, this study will explore survivorship after cardiac arrest from various perspectives, including different causes of arrest.Clinicaltrials gov: NCT0207942.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| 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".