Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Controlled Study of the Clinical Effectiveness of Automated Real-Time Feedback on CPR Process Conducted at a Subset of ROC Sites (CPR) (ROC-CPR-BioLINCC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data Access NOTE:** **Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Objectives:** **A substudy of the ROC PRIMED trial, the ROC CPR trial sought to investigate whether real-time audio and visual feedback during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) outside a hospital increases the proportion of participants who achieved prehospital return of spontaneous circulation. Background:** **Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is an essential link in the chain of survival for treating cardiac arrest. However, performance of CPR is highly variable both outside hospital and in hospital. Interruptions in chest compression, inadequate depth of chest compression, and high rates of ventilation adversely affect blood flow during chest compressions and can hinder resuscitation. Suboptimal CPR, particularly time spent without chest compressions (low chest compression fraction), can reduce survival of cardiac arrest patients. Current technology incorporated into a monitor-defibrillator can assess core components of CPR through the use of an accelerometer and impedance changes across the defibrillation electrodes. This technology can also provide real-time audiovisual feedback so that the rescuer is prompted to perform according to guideline specifications. Use of such feedback increases the likelihood of performing CPR in accordance with guidelines during training and simulation. Participants:** **There were 1586 participants: 771 treated without feedback and 815 with feedback. Design: CPR feedback was provided through proprietary Q-CPR software operating in the Philips MRx monitor-defibrillator. The feedback feature of the defibrillator includes audible voice prompts and visual messages on the monitor screen that are triggered when measured chest compressions or ventilation deviate from guidelines or are interrupted. The study was conducted in 21 emergency medical service (EMS) agencies at three ROC regions in the U.S. and Canada. Randomized treatment clusters, which ranged from individual emergency medical vehicles to groups of emergency agencies, were assigned to feedback-on or feedback-off treatments. Each cluster remained in its assigned mode for two to seven months, after which it switched to the opposite treatment arm. At the end of those two treatment periods, each cluster was again randomly assigned to feedback-on or feedback-off. This cycle continued for the duration of the study. Each cluster switched treatment arms at least once, and up to four times, during the study. Conclusions: Real-time visual and audible feedback during CPR altered performance to more closely conform with CPR guidelines. Clusters assigned to feedback were associated with increased proportion of time in which chest compressions were provided, increased compression depth, and decreased proportion of compressions with incomplete release. However, frequency of prehospital return of spontaneous circulation did not differ according to feedback status, nor did the presence of a pulse at hospital arrival, survival to discharge, or awake at hospital discharge (Hostler, et al., 2011, PMID: [21296838](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21296838/)).
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 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 | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".