MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Techniques for emergency ventilation through a needle cricothyroidotomy

2008· article· en· W2133498617 on OpenAlexaff
M. Dylan Bould, P Bearfield

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineJet ventilationCatheterVentilation (architecture)AnesthesiaSurgeryMechanical engineeringAirway

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the pressures produced by a construction intended for emergency ventilation through a needle cricothyroidotomy. This construction consisted of a standard hospital wall oxygen supply, flowmeter, oxygen tubing and a three-way tap. We measured the flow achieved through a transtracheal catheter and compared the construction to a Manujet jet ventilator and to a Sanders injector. The construction performed similarly to the Manujet set at low pressures (0-100 kPa). To achieve similar pressures and flow to the Manujet set at pressures higher than 100 kPa required opening of the flowmeter beyond its calibrated range. The flow through the transtracheal catheter was almost three times higher when the flowmeters were fully opened than when they were opened to the 15 l x min(-1) mark (44.5 vs 15.8 l x min(-1), respectively; p < 0.0001). When the flowmeters were fully opened the pressure measured before the catheter was over four times higher than when they were only opened to the 15 l x min(-1) mark (285.3 vs 66.4 kPa, respectively; p < 0.0001). This system of ventilation is inferior to a Manujet in terms of robustness and calibration throughout its range of pressures and flows, but seems appropriate for emergency use in the absence of a purpose-made jet ventilator.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations27
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesiaSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207