MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318751753 · doi:10.3357/asem.2842.2010

Arterial Gas Embolism During Pressure Tolerance Testing in a Hyperbaric Chamber: A Report of Two Cases

2010· article· en· W2318751753 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D Kim Buschmann

Bibliographic record

VenueAviation Space and Environmental Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtant taxonMedicineLesionPulmonary embolismEmbolismSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a report of two cases of arterial gas embolism (AGE) occurring during the course of routine pressure tolerance testing (PTT) of Canadian Forces divers in a dry hyperbaric chamber. PTT is used by many military organizations as a means to determine whether divers can sustain a hyperbaric challenge similar to that to which they will be exposed during their diving duties. Problems arising from such testing are usually limited to issues of equalization and minor otic barotraumas. Incidents of AGE resulting from hyperbaric chamber exposures in general are very unusual. The incidents reported here are the first such cases arising in military divers during PTT to be reported in the extant literature. In one case a potential precipitating pulmonary lesion was identified during post-event chest imaging. In the other case, while presenting with all the usual hallmarks of an AGE, no predisposing pulmonary lesion was identified. Ascent rates were within the limits considered acceptable by the Canadian Forces for PTT. The cases are useful in examining the pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying pulmonary barotrauma and AGE, and raise questions as to the appropriate screening procedures for military divers in this regard.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0080.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAviation Space and Environmental MedicineSame topicCardiovascular and Diving-Related ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207