The McGrath <sup>®</sup> Series 5 videolaryngoscope vs the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomised, controlled trial in patients with a simulated difficult airway
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
We compared the McGrath® Series 5 videolaryngoscope with the Macintosh laryngoscope in a simulated difficult airway, using manual in-line stabilisation in 88 anaesthestised patients of ASA physical status 1-2. The primary outcome was laryngoscopic view. Secondary outcomes included rates of successful tracheal intubation and complications. A Cormack and Lehane grade-1 or -2 view was found in all patients when using the McGrath compared with 45 (51%, p < 0.0001) using the Macintosh laryngoscopes. The mean (SD) percentage of glottic opening was 82 (23)% using the McGrath compared with 13 (23)% using the Macintosh (p < 0.0001). In 66 out of 88 patients (75%), the McGrath improved the glottic view by one to three grades compared with the Macintosh (p < 0.001). Intubation of the trachea was successful in all patients using the McGrath, while the Macintosh was successful in 26 (59%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the complication rates between the devices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it