MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018275652 · doi:10.1007/s00268-013-2025-6

Evolution of Percutaneous Dilatational Tracheostomy—A Review of Current Techniques and Their Pitfalls

2013· review· en· W2018275652 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Cools‐Lartigue, Ali Aboalsaud, Heather L. Gill, Lorenzo Ferri

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Surgery · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTracheal and airway disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneousIntensive care medicineCardiothoracic surgeryVascular surgeryCritically illCardiac surgerySurgeryAcute respiratory failureComplicationAbdominal surgeryMechanical ventilationAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations45
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of SurgerySame topicTracheal and airway disordersFrench-language works237,207