MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1909801433 · doi:10.21236/ada443138

Probability of Decompression Sickness in No-Stop Air Diving

2004· report· en· W1909801433 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hugh D. Van Liew, E. T. Flynn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecompression sicknessDecompressionAeronauticsEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyGeographyEngineeringMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We produce statistics-based (probabilistic) and intuition-based (deterministic) models using dive-outcome data from the U.S. Navy Decompression Database to gain an understanding of the no-stop diving instructions used by the U.S. Navy and various other navies. The models allow estimation of probability of decompression sickness (DCS) for various bottom times for air no-stop diving. Our calibration data set contains 2.037 experimental no-stop dives with 104 cases of decompression sickness (DCS) and covers a large range of depths and bottom times; unfortunately the data are not well distributed with regard to depth, bottom time, and DCS incidence. Our probabilistic model shows good agreement between predictions and observations. We augment the same calibration data set with a few dives that have short decompression stops to produce the deterministic model. According to our models, probability of decompression sickness (Pdcs) is 2% or less for current U.S. Navy schedules for most no-stop air dives and near 1% for no-stop schedules of the navies of Great Britain, Canada, and France. Our probabilistic model serves well to provide Pdcs estimates and time limits that are similar to those in current use by navies for most of the range of standard air diving and for subsaturation diving, but it fails for short, deep dives in two ways: it fails to avoid observed DCS cases in our calibration data set. and it indicates that bottom time can be longer than bottom times in current use by the navies we examined. For short, deep dives, we recommend depth/bottom-time combinations yielded by our deterministic model.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCardiovascular and Diving-Related ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207