MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1672798514 · doi:10.1177/229255030901700417

Submental Intubation: An Alternative to Tracheostomy When Nasoendotracheal Intubation Is Unsuccessful – a Case Report

2009· article· en· W1672798514 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Johnny Franco, Jeffrey Coppage, Michael A. Fallucco, J. Scott Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plastic Surgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTracheal and airway disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntubationEndotracheal intubationSurgeryAnesthesiaMandibular fractureInternal fixationOrotracheal intubationOral and maxillofacial surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Submental intubation (SI) has been proposed as an alternative to nasoendotracheal intubation when oral endotracheal intubation is contraindicated. In patients who require intubation for maxillofacial reconstruction, this is an alternative to a traditional tracheostomy. The present case report presents an 18-year-old woman who suffered a comminuted mandibular fracture. Two days after her accident, she was taken to the operating room for open reduction with internal fixation of her mandible; however, the anesthesia staff was unable to nasally intubate the patient. A SI was performed. The procedure was completed without complications and the surgery accomplished with the SI. The patient was able to avoid a tracheostomy for an isolated operation. SI avoids the dangers of nasoendotracheal intubation in patients with midfacial fractures and avoids complications related to tracheostomy. Thus, SI may serve as an alternative to tracheostomy in patients without other medical conditions and indications for long-term intubation.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0150.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plastic SurgerySame topicTracheal and airway disordersFrench-language works237,207