Evolution of Percutaneous Dilatational Tracheostomy—A Review of Current Techniques and Their Pitfalls
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tracheostomy is the most commonly performed surgical procedure in critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure. While few absolute indications exist, this procedure is widely used in patients with upper respiratory obstruction and those requiring long-term mechanical ventilation. The traditional approach to tracheostomy has been an open procedure performed in the operating room. This method is associated with an increased rate of complications and costs. Accordingly, percutaneous bedside tracheostomy procedures have largely replaced the traditional operative approach at many institutions. Numerous methods for percutaneous tracheostomy have thus emerged. However, the benefits of one technique versus another have not been well demonstrated. In this article, we review the evidence supporting the use of percutaneous tracheostomy procedures over the traditional operative approach. Furthermore, we review the currently available and emerging methods by which percutaneous tracheostomy can be performed. In addition, we highlight the available evidence concerning the safety and complication rates of each technique.
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 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it