Airtraq™ versus Macintoch laryngoscope in intubation performance in the pediatric population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Airtraq™ is an optical laryngoscope that allows viewing of the vocal cords without a direct line of sight. The main objective of this prospective, randomized, controlled trial was to evaluate Airtraq intubation characteristics, mainly intubation time and cardiovascular changes in the pediatric patients. METHODS: Fifty children of American Society of Anesthesiologists class I, 2-10 years of age were divided into 2 groups using sealed envelope technique. Children were premedicated with midazolam. Anesthesia was induced with sevoflurane, fentanyl, and atracurium. Patients were randomly allocated to be intubated with either Airtraq (Airtraq group) or Macintosh laryngoscope (Macintosh group). Intubation time, number of intubation attempts, optimization maneuvers, and ease of intubation were recorded. Hemodynamic variables were recorded before and after anesthetic induction, 1, 3, and 5 min after tracheal intubation. RESULTS: The mean age of children was 6.1 years. Compared with Macintosh group, the use of Airtraq was associated with shorter intubation time (51.6±26.7 s vs 22.8±6.1 s, respectively, P=0.001), less median number of intubation attempts 2 (1-2) versus 1 (1-1), P=0.001), more ease of intubation [2 (1-3) versus 1 (1-1), P=0.001] and less increase in the heart rate 5 min after intubation (P=0.007). No optimization maneuvers required for Airtraq laryngoscope (P=0.001). CONCLUSION: Airtraq decreases intubation time, number of attempts, and optimization maneuvers, less heart rate changes during intubation compared with Macintosh laryngoscope.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".