MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019959100 · doi:10.1097/aco.0b013e3283415659

One-lung ventilation and arterial oxygenation

2010· review· en· W2019959100 on OpenAlexaff
Seiji Ishikawa, Jens Lohser

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Anaesthesiology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypoxemiaOxygenationSupine positionAnesthesiaVentilation (architecture)DexmedetomidineProne positionLimitingIntensive care medicineClinical PracticeSedation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hypoxemia during one-lung ventilation (OLV) has become less common; however, it may still occur in about 10% of cases. We review recent developments which may affect the incidence and treatment of hypoxemia during OLV. RECENT FINDINGS: Changes in surgical techniques are affecting oxygenation during OLV. The increased use of the supine position may adversely affect the prevalence of hypoxemia, whereas the increased application of thoracoscopic techniques is limiting the treatment options. Treatment options such as global or selective recruitment maneuvers and drug effects of dexmedetomidine and epoprostenol on arterial oxygenation during OLV are discussed. Capnometry prior to, or early during OLV, may in fact be able to predict the degree of hypoxemia during OLV. Persistent controversies surrounding the effect of epidural anesthesia, ventilatory modalities and gravity are reviewed. SUMMARY: Interesting concepts have emerged from case reports and small studies on the treatment and prediction of hypoxemia during OLV. Definitive studies on the most effective ventilatory mode remain elusive. End-organ effects of OLV are an exciting new concept that may shape clinical practice and research going forward.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations55
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in AnaesthesiologySame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207