Should All Patients Be Treated With Hypothermia Following Cardiac Arrest?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac arrest is a common and lethal medical problem; each year more than half a million people in the United States and Canada suffer cardiac arrest treated by emergency medical personnel or in-hospital providers. Of those who survive to hospital admission or suffer in-hospital arrest, 40–60% die prior to discharge. Neurologic injury is the major source of morbidity and mortality after recovery of spontaneous circulation. Therapeutic options to prevent neurologic injury are limited, but recent randomized trials showed that moderate therapeutic hypothermia improves neurologic outcome in selected patients following cardiac arrest. Clear consensus statements recommend that unconscious adult patients with spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest should be cooled if the initial rhythm was ventricular fibrillation, and that therapeutic hypothermia should be considered for other patients (other rhythms or in-hospital arrest). However, the position that all patients should be cooled following cardiac arrest is probably too broad, given the lack of studies on patients with non-ventricular-fibrillation rhythms, in-hospital arrest, or non-cardiac causes of arrest. Further research is needed to determine the broadest application of moderate therapeutic hypothermia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".