MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029984619 · doi:10.1115/1.4002237

Preliminary Development and Engineering Evaluation of a Novel Cricothyrotomy Device

2010· article· en· W2029984619 on OpenAlexaff
Jason P. Carey, Morgan Gwin, Andrew Kan, Roger Toogood, Barry A. Finegan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Devices · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCricothyrotomyMirroringComputer scienceSystems engineeringEngineeringReliability engineeringMedicineAirway managementAirwaySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cricothyrotomy is one of the procedures used to ventilate patients with upper airway blockage. This paper examines the most regularly used and preferred cricothyrotomy devices on the market, suggests critical design specifications for improving cricothyrotomy devices, introduces a new cricothyrotomy device, and performs an engineering evaluation of the device's critical components. Through a review of literature, manufacturer products, and patents, four principal cricothyrotomy devices currently in clinical use were identified. From the review, the Cook™ Melker device is the preferred method of clinicians but the device has acknowledged problems. A new emergency needle cricothyrotomy device (ENCD) was developed to address all design specifications identified in literature. Engineering, theoretical, and experimental assessments were performed. In situ evaluations of a prototype of the new device using porcine specimens to assess insertion, extraction, and cyclic force capabilities were performed. The device was very successful in its evaluation. Further discussion focuses on these aspects and a comparison of the new device with established devices. The proposed emergency needle cricothyrotomy device performed very well. Further work will be pursued in the future with in-vitro and in-vivo with canine models demonstrates the capabilities of the ENCD.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.301 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical DevicesSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207