MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2507734401 · doi:10.1111/anae.13581

Standardising airway management documentation

2016· letter· en· W2507734401 on OpenAlexaffabout
Agnihotri Biswas, L. Venkatragavan

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAirwayAirway managementDocumentationIntensive care medicineIntubationAnesthesiaComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recording details of airway management on anaesthetic charts informs future safe management of patients undergoing anaesthesia, particularly if patients have a difficult or potentially difficult airway 1. The range of airway equipment available to anaesthetists for managing difficult airways has changed significantly in the last decade. ‘Difficult’ or ‘easy’ no longer define airways that can be intubated using a Macintosh laryngoscope. In a recent survey of Canadian anaesthetists, for example, over 90% choose to use a videolaryngoscope in situations of ‘cannot intubate and cannot ventilate’ 2. However, we suggest that documentation by anaesthetists has not kept pace with advances in what equipment or techniques they used for difficult airway management, and that this leads to potentially avoidable airway problems during subsequent anaesthesia. We would like to invite the Difficult Airway Society to comment on whether they have considered modifying their airway alert document 3, or recommending a standardised anaesthetic chart section for airway management to this end, by including specific details of equipment used and sequential management?

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0180.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.008

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.265 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreCommentary

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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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