Does a new videolaryngoscope (glidescope) provide better glottic exposure?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The GlideScope (Saturn Biomedical Systems Inc, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada) is a new videolaryngoscope designed as an alternative to the conventional laryngoscope. It was designed to facilitate glottic exposure during tracheal intubation. This study assessed the effectiveness of the GlideScope in providing glottic exposure. METHODS: One hundred and three patients requiring general anesthesia for elective surgery were enrolled in this study. Under full monitoring, all patients were given fentanyl, propofol or thiopentone and muscle relaxant for induction. In each patient laryngoscopy was performed first with a Macintosh blade (size 3), then with the GlideScope. The optimal view of the larynx that could be achieved with each instrument was recorded and assessed using the grading scale of Cormack and Lehane (C&L grade). Intubation was performed with the GlideScope. RESULTS: The grading decreased in the majority (93.6%, 44/47) of patients with C&L grade > 1 when using the GlideScope. Of the 22 patients who were considered as subjects of difficult intubation, 20 had an improved laryngoscopic grade with GlideScope. One hundred and one patients were intubated successfully at the first attempt. CONCLUSIONS: The laryngeal view was better in the GildeScope group using this grading system. The GlideScope provided a better view of the glottis and is a useful alternative in airway management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".