MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107149232 · doi:10.1186/cc9306

Trach tubes designed to maximize safety may increase risk to ventilated patients

2010· review· en· W2107149232 on OpenAlexaffabout
John McCracken, David Leasa

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTracheal and airway disorders
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMechanical ventilationCuffAirwayTracheostomy tubeRehabilitationMechanical ventilatorPressure support ventilationIntensive care medicineVentilation (architecture)SurgeryAnesthesiaPhysical therapyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dual-cannulae tracheostomy tubes with low-pressure cuffs, such as the Shiley LPC, are widely regarded as inherently safer than single lumen tubes with low-volume cuffs. For the patient who undergoes tracheostomy for failure to wean from mechanical ventilation, however, the insertion of a tube that occupies a large amount of space within the trachea can delay subsequent efforts to liberate him from the ventilator. With an aim to promote more timely rehabilitation of ventilated patients, London Ontario's University Hospital has been inserting the Bivona TTS, a single lumen tube with an elastic cuff, during tracheostomy. This allows caregivers to better exploit the benefits of a functional upper airway early during the weaning process, which may reduce complications associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation. We urge clinical studies to determine how the choice of initial tracheostomy tube can affect rehabilitation strategies and important patient outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicTracheal and airway disordersFrench-language works237,207