Wolf Creek XVIII Part 6: transforming clinical trial design in cardiac arrest research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 50th Anniversary Wolf Creek XVIII Conference was hosted by the Max Harry Weil Institute for Critical Care Research and Innovation in Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA on June 19-21, 2025. "Transforming Clinical Trial Design in Cardiac Arrest Research" was a topic of focused presentation and discussion. Participants included invited panelists and conference attendees made up of international academic and industry scientists as well as thought leaders in the field of cardiac arrest resuscitation. Panelists identified six key opportunities to transform clinical trial design: (1) Selecting the "right" patient and intervention, (2) Optimizing randomization, (3) Measuring relevant and unbiased outcomes, (4) Designing alternative approaches to "usual" randomize controlled trials (RCTs), (5) Maintaining public trust and engagement, and (6) Changing the approach to knowledge translation from research into clinical practice.
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 | 0.261 | 0.222 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.014 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".