Recent developments in percutaneous tracheostomy: improving techniques and expanding roles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to provide an update of recent developments pertaining to the use of percutaneous tracheostomy. Percutaneous tracheostomy has been established as an alternative to open surgical tracheostomy, but many key questions about the optimal use of this procedure remain unanswered. RECENT FINDINGS: Issues in percutaneous tracheostomy that have been addressed in the recent literature include the optimal method, timing, use of percutaneous tracheostomy in emergencies, safety in high-risk populations, confirmation of tracheal puncture, and outcomes. SUMMARY: Recent literature suggests that percutaneous tracheostomy is safe to use in an expanding population of patients, including patients with airway compromise and thrombocytopenia. Several methods seem to be safe alternatives to that originally described. Capnography has arisen as an alternative to bronchoscopy for confirmation of tracheal puncture. Recent evidence highlights that although tracheostomy may improve short-term outcome, these critically ill patients have a significant long-term risk of poor outcome. This must be taken into consideration when this procedure is offered.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".