Jet insufflation options for the cannot intubate–cannot ventilate situation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sir, The recent letter by Kulkarni et al.[1] outlining the jet insufflation jugaad that was derived from a Jackson-Rees circuit, a 4 mm ID endotracheal tube connector, and Luer-lock venous extension tubing, offers a potentially viable alternative to commercially available jet ventilation devices such as the Enk Oxygen Flow Modulator (Cook Inc., Bloomington, IN, USA), the Rapid O2™ Insufflator (Meditech Systems Ltd, Shaftesbury, UK) and the Manujet III™ (VBM, Medizintechnik GmBH, Sula and Neckar, Germany) for use in cannot intubate–cannot ventilate situations in paediatric patients. Indeed, the authors' improvised insufflator solution that offers both jet inspiration and active expiration exploits the Hagen–Poiseuille law in a very similar fashion to another relatively new commercially available device, the Ventrain® (Ventinova Medical B. V., Eindhoven, Netherlands).[2] This device has similarly been shown to allow both inspiration and active expiration when used with both short and long small-bore airway cannulae.[3] The Ventrain device is a portable, easy to use, light weight, stand-alone high-pressure injector that uses up to 15 L/min in oxygen flow. Importantly, it has also withstood the evaluative rigor of medical equipment regulatory agencies making it potentially safer than the improvised device suggested by Kulkarni et al. That said, I congratulate these authors on their improvisation and ingenuity, as they appear to have independently validated and partially replicated the work that had been accomplished with the Ventrain. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".