MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Removal of the stylet from the tracheal tube: effect of lubrication

2012· article· en· W1556149965 on OpenAlexaff
Alanna Taylor, Orlando Hung, Kwesi Kwofie, Christopher R. Hung, D. R. Hung, Angelina Guzzo

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTracheal and airway disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStyletMedicineLidocaineTube (container)LubricationTracheal tubeSiliconeSterile waterAnesthesiaChromatographyIntubationSurgeryMaterials scienceComposite materialChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compared the work needed to retract a non-lubricated and a lubricated stylet from a tracheal tube over 24 h. Stylets were lubricated with sterile water, silicone fluid, lidocaine spray, lidocaine gel, MedPro(®) lubricating gel or Lacri-Lube(®). The mean (SD) work in joules needed to retract the stylet by 5 cm from the tracheal tube was recorded immediately (time 0), at 5 and 30 min and at 1, 3 and 24 h. At time 0 lubrication with sterile water (0.53 (0.09); p = 0.001), silicone fluid (0.43 (0.10); p < 0.001), lidocaine gel (0.60 (0.15); p = 0.01) and MedPro gel (0.57 (0.07); p = 0.005), were better than no lubrication (0.94 (0.28)). Where a tracheal tube is pre-loaded with a stylet for use at an indeterminate time, silicone fluid was the best choice of lubricant as it performed consistently well up to 24 h. At 24 h only silicone fluid (0.49 (0.01)) outperformed no lubrication (0.77 (0.24); p = 0.04).

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesiaSame topicTracheal and airway disordersFrench-language works237,207