MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Acute Vision Impairment: Does It Affect an Anesthesiologist’s Ability to Intubate the Trachea?

2002· article· en· W1975570234 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Tessler, Stamatina T. Trihas, Olga Overbury, Thiérry Ducruet

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntubationAnesthesiaBlind spotVisual fieldTracheal intubationEndotracheal intubationAirwaySurgeryOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: The result of impaired vision on an anesthesiologist's ability to intubate the trachea is unknown. We studied 12 attending staff anesthesiologists as they intubated 2 anesthesia mannequins (A and B) under 6 conditions. The conditions were: 1) usual vision, 2) central-vision loss with 20/500 bilaterally and a 24 degrees central scotoma, 3) peripheral-field loss with 20/20 bilaterally and a 7 degrees visual field, 4) peripheral-field loss with 20/20 bilaterally and a 3.5 degrees visual field, 5) central-vision loss with 20/200 bilaterally and a 12 degrees central scotoma, and 6) right eye ocular media opacity and 20/70 left eye usual acuity. The time to intubation was recorded by stopwatch from gripping the laryngoscope until the anesthesiologist signaled that the endotracheal tube was properly placed in the trachea. The mean +/- SD times to intubation for Mannequins A and B were 16.0 +/- 3.3, 31.9 +/- 10.4, 26.4 +/- 9.0, 26.4 +/- 7.7, 22.4 +/- 5.1, 25.5 +/- 16.9 and 16.6 +/- 6.6, 26.9 +/- 10.0, 21.4 +/- 9.2, 21.4 +/- 5.8, 21.5 +/- 7.7, 17.7 +/- 5.1 s for the 6 conditions, respectively. Multiple analysis of variance revealed a highly significant difference for the time to successful intubation between the anesthesiologists' usual vision and the vision-impaired conditions. There was a significant improvement in time to successful intubation from the first to subsequent intubation attempts. There were also more esophageal intubations in the vision-impaired conditions. This implies that anesthesiologists who develop acute severe vision impairment might have more difficulty intubating the trachea, which could initiate more critical incidents. The results of this study cannot be applied to anesthesiologists with chronic vision impairment. IMPLICATIONS: We found that acute severe vision impairment adversely affects the anesthesiologist's ability to intubate the trachea. This implies that anesthesiologists with acute onset of severe visual handicaps might have more difficulty intubating the trachea, which could initiate more critical incidents.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207