Prehospital Glidescope video laryngoscopy for difficult airway management in a helicopter rescue program with anaesthetists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to analyze the prehospital use of a Glidescope video laryngoscope (GSVL) due to anticipated and unexpected difficult airway in a helicopter emergency medical service setting in which emergency physicians (EP) are experienced anesthetists. Retrospective observational study and survey of the experiences of EP were conducted for more than a 3-year period (July 2007-August 2010). In 1675 missions, 152 tracheal intubations (TI) were performed. GSVL was used in 23 cases (15%). A total of 17 patients presented with multiple traumas, including nine with cervical spine immobilization, three with burns, and three with nontraumatic diagnoses. Eight patients experienced previously failed TI with conventional laryngoscopy (five by nonhelicopter emergency medical service EP). In two patients, the EP required two attempts with GSVL to obtain a successful TI. Since the introduction of the GSVL, no other backup airway device was necessary. GSVL may be a valuable support instrument in the prehospital management of difficult airways in emergency patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".