MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346224271 · doi:10.1177/0885066615597198

Postintubation Hypotension in General Anesthesia

2015· article· en· W2346224271 on OpenAlexaff
Robert S. Green, Michael Butler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intensive Care Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaMechanical ventilationIntensive care unitIntubationIncidence (geometry)Confidence intervalOdds ratioTracheal intubationIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Postintubation hypotension (PIH) is an adverse event associated with poor outcomes in emergency department endotracheal intubations. Study objective was to determine the incidence of PIH and its impact on outcomes following tracheal intubation in a general anesthesia population. METHODS: Structured chart audit of adult patients intubated for a vascular surgery procedure at a tertiary care center over a 3-year period. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, extended intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS), and requirement for postoperative (postop) hemodialysis or mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: Incidence of PIH was 60% (837 of 1395). Patients who developed PIH had increased mortality (8.8% PIH vs 5.2% no-PIH; P = .014), extended ICU LOS (7.9% PIH vs 2.0% no-PIH; P < .001), and postop mechanical ventilation requirement (20.7% PIH vs 3.8% no-PIH; P < .001). When controlling for confounding factors, PIH was associated with extended ICU LOS (odds ratio [OR] 2.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-6.62, P = .049), postop ventilation (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.27-4.74, P = .008), and a composite end point (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.02-2.92, P = .043). CONCLUSIONS: Development of PIH occurs in 60% of patients undergoing intubation for vascular surgery and was associated with adverse outcomes including extended ICU LOS and postop ventilation requirement.

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)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
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

Citations65
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intensive Care MedicineSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207