Instruction in awake fibreoptic intubation using the trainees as subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report our experience of 12 training courses using course delegates as subjects for training in awake intubation [1]. Delegates attended either as participants or observers. Airway local anaesthesia, fibreoptic endoscopy and tracheal intubation were performed on participants by other course members. Adverse events during airway anaesthesia and endoscopy were recorded. Additional data were collected from application forms. All delegates completed an anonymous questionnaire: participants were asked to grade sensations such as anxiety, pain, coughing and gagging on a 5-point scale. Eighty-nine delegates presented for training; 47 had previously performed 10 or fewer fibreoptic intubations and eight had performed none before. Of the 89 delegates, 21 were observers. Endoscopy of the airway was performed to the level of the trachea in all 68 participants; nasotracheal intubation was completed in 59. Gagging was rated as slightly uncomfortable by 36 (53%) of the 68 participants; eight (12%) found this uncomfortable and one rated this as very uncomfortable. Twenty-three (34%) reported no discomfort associated with gagging during endoscopy or intubation. Thirty-three subjects (48%) found the procedure slightly painful and 36 (53%) reported anxiety associated with the procedure. No delegates rated the sensation of endoscopy or intubation as distressing. Overall, the procedure was rated as acceptable by 57 (84%) subjects and enjoyable by 11 (16%). Severe paraesthesia of the hands developed in one individual. Minor nasal bleeding occurred in two cases, and did not interfere with endoscopy. One delegate felt faint following endoscopy; this settled with rest and intravenous fluid. One delegate vomited an undigested meal following endoscopy despite not having eaten for 8 h. Six hours after endoscopy, one delegate developed a fever with rigors; he was treated with antibiotics and suffered no long term effects. The use of course delegates as subjects for training in airway endoscopy was acceptable to this self-selected group of anaesthetists when conducted under closely controlled conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".