MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pilot randomized study comparing two techniques of airway anaesthesia during curvilinear probe endobronchial ultrasound bronchoscopy (CP‐EBUS)

2010· article· en· W1926822702 on OpenAlex
Hans J. Lee, Andrew R. Haas, Daniel H. Sterman, R.V. Solly, Anil Vachani, Colin T. Gillespie

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRespirology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndobronchial ultrasoundBronchoscopyAirwayAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialGeneral anaesthesiaRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates two different techniques for topically anaesthetizing the airway with lidocaine during curvilinear probe endobronchial ultrasound bronchoscopy (CP-EBUS): standard injection through the working channel and spray catheter application. METHODS: This was a randomized, non-blinded, single-centre pilot study. Patients with plans for CP-EBUS under moderate sedation were enrolled. All patients received nebulized lidocaine followed by posterior oropharyngeal lidocaine via atomizer and a cotton ball swab using McGill forceps. Patients were then randomly assigned to lidocaine administration using spray catheter instillation or direct application through the working channel. Lidocaine was administered in a uniform fashion by a single investigator throughout the study. The primary end-point was the number of significant coughing episodes in the first 30 min of bronchoscopy. Other end-points included lidocaine and intravenous sedation medication dosage; severe coughing session; and number of transbronchial needle aspirations. RESULTS: Forty patients were included in the study: 20 patients in each group. The median numbers of coughing episodes in the first 30 min were 1 (spray catheter group) and 2 (standard injection group) (P < 0.004). Six patients in the standard installation group experienced severe coughing sessions, while there was none in the spray catheter group (P = 0.02). There were no statistical differences between the groups in the dosage of lidocaine or intravenous sedation medications used. There were a greater number of transbronchial needle aspirations performed in the spray catheter group (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine delivery via the spray catheter reduced the number of significant coughing episodes compared with standard working channel injection during CP-EBUS. Larger studies are needed to confirm these exploratory findings.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.290 · 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