Learning Neonatal Intubation Using the Videolaryngoscope
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The use of the videolaryngoscope (VL) facilitates intubation in adults and children, but experience in neonates is scarce. The objective of this study was to compare the VL with the classic laryngoscope (CL) in acquiring the skill of neonatal endotracheal intubation (ETI) and evaluate transferability of skill from VL to CL. We hypothesize that, on a neonatal mannequin, the VL will be superior to the CL with regard to success rate and that the skill will be transferred from VL to CL. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was held at Sainte-Justine Hospital's simulation center. Third- and fourth-year medical students were randomized into group A, which used VL for the first phase and CL for the second phase, and group B, which used CL for both phases. Each subject performed 9 ETI on 3 simulated neonatal airways in each phase. RESULTS: Thirty-four students performed 612 intubations. Success in group A was higher than in group B in the first phase of the study (96.5% vs. 84.6%, P < 0.001). During phase 2, group A's success did not change significantly (91.7% vs. 96.5%, P = 0.07). Time to successful intubation was longer using the VL (27.6 vs. 15.6 seconds, P < 0.001), but there was no difference in phase 2 (12.5 vs. 10.2 seconds, P = 0.24). There were no esophageal intubations using the VL. CONCLUSIONS: Success rate of ETI on mannequins was improved, and esophageal intubations decreased while learning ETI using the VL compared with the CL. Once ETI is learned on mannequins using the VL, this skill is transferrable to the CL.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it