7: Neonatal Endotracheal Intubation Learned with Videolaryngoscope is Maintained with Classic Laryngoscope: Phase 2 of a Crossover Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between July 2011 and June 2013, 34 pediatric residents were randomized to perform 213 endotracheal intubations (ETI) using either the videolaryngoscope (VL) or the classic laryngoscope (CL) in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) at CHU Ste-Justine. Success rate of ETI was improved in residents learning with the VL (75.2 vs 63.4%). It is unknown if the ETI skill learned from the VL is maintained when residents switch to the CL. Assess if the ETI skill acquired from the VL is transferable to the CL in the NICU. Phase 2 of the randomized controlled trial was held between January 2012 and December 2013. Primary outcome: Success rate and learning curve (Generalized estimating equations). Secondary outcomes: a) Time to successful intubation (Mann-Whitney Test); b) Comparison of success rates between both phases of the study for each group (χ2 test). Twenty-three of the 34 randomized residents completed phase 2 of the study and performed 55 ETI using the CL. In both groups, prior training, experience in the NICU and with neonatal ETI were similar. Patient characteristics, success rate and time to successful intubation are presented in the table. In phase 2, learning curve of the CL group remained stable at 80% success rate with ongoing intubations while it decreased slightly but not significantly to 75% for the VL group. Success rates in phase 1 and phase 2 of VL group (75.2 vs 62.5%, P=0.16) and CL group (63.4 vs 77.4%, P=0.10) did not differ. Residents improved success rate of ETI with the VL slightly decreases, but not significantly, when switched to the CL. Time to successful intubation is also similar in both groups. This suggests that the acquired skill from the VL is maintained with the CL. The VL is a promising tool for teaching ETI as residents reach higher success rates more rapidly and the acquired skill is transferable 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".