Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: While there are many predictors of difficult laryngoscopic intubation, they all have a low positive predictive value. Therefore, unanticipated difficult laryngoscopic intubation will likely occur in our day-to-day practice. This review discusses recent developments in alternative airway devices and techniques in addressing these difficulties. RECENT FINDINGS: There is emerging evidence to suggest that new supraglottic devices are useful rescue appliances, particularly for unanticipated difficulties in laryngoscopic intubation. Other new intubating devices, including the Glidescope, may also play an important role in the management of patients with unanticipated difficult or failed laryngoscopic intubation. SUMMARY: The evidence to date does not always arm us with the ability to predict a difficult laryngoscopic intubation. Therefore, it is imperative that we equip ourselves with devices and techniques that will help us to maintain effective oxygenation and ventilation in a safe manner in the face of such failure.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".