Illumination of Bulb-on-blade Laryngoscopes in the Out-of-hospital Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine what percentage of out-of-hospital laryngoscopes meet a predetermined minimal illumination criterion and what factors may be altered to improve illumination. METHODS: This was an observational study of the illumination of laryngoscopes currently in use by the Emergency Health Services of Nova Scotia. Each laryngoscope was measured at baseline. This illumination was compared with the illumination after replacement with new batteries, replacement with a new bulb, replacement with new batteries and a new bulb together, and attachment of a disposable blade. The percentage of laryngoscopes that met a previously defined minimal brightness criterion was determined. RESULTS: Fifty-one laryngoscopes were measured. These laryngoscopes had a mean (+/-SD) illumination of 624 (+/-297) lux at baseline. Laryngoscope illumination increased after replacement with new batteries by 168 lux (95% confidence interval [CI] = 121 to 216), replacement with a new bulb by 679 lux (95% CI = 524 to 834), replacement with new batteries and a new bulb by 937 lux (95% CI = 770 to 1,104), and attachment of a disposable blade by 2,401 lux (95% CI = 2,075 to 2,740). Fourteen percent of laryngoscopes (7/51) at baseline met the minimal illumination criterion. CONCLUSIONS: Only a small percentage of out-of-hospital laryngoscopes met the minimal illumination criterion. There was a statistically significant increase in illumination after replacement with new batteries, replacement with a new bulb, replacement with new batteries and a new bulb, or attachment of a disposable blade. Optimal changing of lightbulbs and batteries in the out-of-hospital setting will have to be more clearly defined.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".