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
BACKGROUND: The optimal technique to intubate the trachea in patients presenting with a potential or documented cervical spine (C-spine) injury remains unresolved. Using continuous fluoroscopic video assessment, C-spine motion during laryngoscopy with an AirTraq Laryngoscope (King Medical Systems, Newark, DE) was compared to that with intubation using a Macintosh blade. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy surgical patients gave written consent to participate in a crossover randomized controlled trial; all patients were subjected to both Macintosh and AirTraq laryngoscopy with manual inline stabilization after induction of anesthesia. The C-spine motion was examined at four areas: the occiput-C1 junction, C1-C2 junction, C2-C5 motion segment, and C5-thoracic motion segment. The time required for laryngoscopy was also measured. RESULTS: C-spine motion using the AirTraq was less than that during Macintosh laryngoscopy, averaging 66% less (P < 0.01) at three of the motion segments studied, occiput-C1, C2-C5, and C5-thoracic. There was no difference at the C1-C2 segment. There was no significant difference in the time to accomplish laryngoscopy between the two devices. CONCLUSIONS: For patients in whom C-spine movement is undesirable, use of the AirTraq Laryngoscope may be useful to limit movement without an increase in the duration of intubation.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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