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 OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hans J. Lee, Andrew R. Haas, Daniel H. Sterman, R.V. Solly, Anil Vachani, Colin T. Gillespie

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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

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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations23
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespirologySame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207