Interfacility Transport of Patients With Decompression Illness: Literature Review andConsensus Statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Decompression illness (DCI) is a potentially lethal complication of diving and may occur far from hyperbaric facilities. The need for prompt transport to a hyperbaric facility often involves air medical transport, but this may exacerbate DCI. The authors reviewed available literature to establish evidence-based transport strategies utilizing safe altitudes for patients, with DCI. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and materials from organizations with expertise in diving medicine were searched for the following terms: decompression sickness, caisson disease, hyperbaric oxygenation, depth intoxication, or diving. Two reviewers independently selected relevant citations involving patients with DCI and air medical transport for review and consensus statement development by an expert working group. RESULTS: A total of 341 citations were identified, and 53 unique citations were reviewed. Nine relevant citations were selected for consensus statement development. There were no clinical trials or prospective cohort studies. Only two retrospective case series, including nine patients, specifically examined the effect of altitude on patients with DCI during transport. No symptom recurrence occurred when the cabin altitude remained within 500 feet of ground level. Seven citations were either letters or statements of expert opinion, recommending a maximum cabin altitude of 500-1000 feet (152-305 meters). CONCLUSIONS: The working group identified the paucity of clinical studies and evidence-based recommendations for air medical transport of patients with DCI. Transport selection should be based on minimizing total transport time and, when transporting by air, ensuring that a cabin altitude of the transporting vehicle does not exceed 500 feet (152 meters) above the departure point.
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 | 0.012 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".