MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Anaesthesia induction rooms – sheer luxury

2002· letter· en· W1733691376 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark C. Bellamy

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2002
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSAFERGeneral anaesthesiaAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dr Sawyer's experiences in Canada easily translate to the UK (Sawyer. Anaesthesia 2001; 56: 1006). I abandoned the use of anaesthetic rooms in 1993. Inducing anaesthesia, then disconnecting all monitoring and the breathing system, and taking the patient for an apnoeic perambulation on a sightseeing tour of the theatre suite is frankly barmy, if not downright hazardous. Objectively, if we indulge this practice, we could be accused of pandering to personal insecurity, or worse, some form of professional narcissism. What is the point of establishing minimum standards of monitoring, teaching our trainees that failure to adhere to these standards is a crucifixion offence, then encouraging the baffled trainee to suspend disbelief while we disregard all the rules and move the patient to the substantive anaesthetic venue? Inducing anaesthesia in theatre is in my experience safer, faster, and allows plenty of space for inserting lines without desterilizing the equipment in a cramped anaesthetic room. Moreover, after only a very short time, the surgeons were re-educated into not interfering with the patient until prepared for surgery. Indeed, many of the surgical trainees took to observing the mysterious rites of anaesthesia with a growing fascination, understanding, and dare I say it, respect? Several have since approached me for airway and ‘lines’ training, so I guess they must have enjoyed the anaesthetic floorshow. Several interesting spin offs have benefited patients. One unfortunate who suffered an anaphylactic reaction at induction owes his survival (unscathed) to the ready presence of plenty of pairs of hands, best equipment, monitoring and space that in-theatre induction afforded. Moreover, I enjoy sharing my disasters with the rest of the team – it is less stressful, not more stressful, and has led to more referrals of anaesthetic pre-assessment. The resource released by not having to equip anaesthetic rooms could be used for something of value: critical care beds, nurses to staff them and so on. Surely, in the interest of safety it is time to have a little more confidence in our profession, and emerge from the anaesthetic room into the daylight world of the operating theatre.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.016
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0090.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1290.031

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesiaSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207