Bibliographic record
Abstract
The placement of a cuffed tube in the trachea offers the highest level of airway maintenance and protection, and is often the most appropriate route for provision of mechanical ventilation. This chapter concentrates on characteristics of the tube rather than the means of inserting it into the trachea. History Intubation of the trachea via the larynx was first described by Macewen of Glasgow in 1878 but only began to gain popularity in the 1920s with the description of blind nasal intubation by Rowbotham and Magill. This technique was quick, accurate and gained early control of the airway. Magill made his own tubes, which he cut from lengths of rubber tubing, bevelling the ends and smoothing the tips with sandpaper before storing them in a biscuit tin to attain the desired curve. Various materials are used in the construction of tracheal tubes and each has its own properties (Table 7.1). Traditional mineralized red rubber tubes are still in use but began to be replaced with plastic tubes from the 1950s. Plastic tubes are made of polyvinyl chloride or polyurethane, offer a number of advantages and are widely used. Silicone tubes are available but less widely used as they are more expensive to manufacture. Polyvinyl chloride and polyurethane tubes may be siliconized as part of the manufacturing process. In the past, some materials used in the manufacture of tracheal tubes have shown evidence of tissue toxicity. Implant testing (IT) or cell culture are mandatory to exclude toxicity when a new material is used, without it the device cannot be marketed. Design Standard tubes have a preformed curve that approximately conforms to the anatomy of the pharynx and which aids insertion and resists kinking of the tube in situ .
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.077 |
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".