External laryngotracheal trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Laryngotracheal trauma encompasses a subset of relatively uncommon yet life-threatening injuries requiring prompt intervention to prevent short- and long-term aerodigestive tract sequelae. Minimal literature exists regarding laryngotracheal injuries on a population level, particularly among Canadian centers. STUDY DESIGN: Case series. METHODS: Regional health databases containing in-patient admissions, emergency department visits, and trauma service activations using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnostic codes were queried to identify all laryngotracheal injuries diagnosed from April 1, 1995, to December 31, 2011. Health records and diagnostic imaging were evaluated for mechanism, injuries, airway management, and long-term aerodigestive function. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients met inclusion criteria, equating to 1/1042 admissions and 1/2478 emergency presentations. Nineteen percent of injuries were severe (Schaefer-Fuhrman score ≥ 4). Airway intervention was performed at presentation in 65% of patients, with 13.5% necessitating emergent surgical airway; 52% underwent investigative or interventional airway surgery. Nine patients (16%) had long-term moderate or severe dysphonia; 14.5% had dysphagia. Odds ratio for death and long-term dysphonia among severe compared to minor laryngotracheal injuries were 7.1 (95% CI = 1.4-35.4) and 17.2 (95% CI = 3.3-91.1), respectively. Several factors were identified that predicted airway management and outcomes. CONCLUSION: Traumatic laryngotracheal injuries are more common than previously reported, due to increased recognition. Many can be managed nonoperatively; however, cases require individual evaluation with judicious airway management and intervention to minimize aerodigestive sequelae. Severe injuries are associated with death and dysphonia but not with dysphagia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
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".