MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790187504 · doi:10.1177/2292550317716123

Ivy Loop Wiring: A Useful Form of Endotracheal Tube Stabilization in Burn Patients

2017· article· en· W2790187504 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew W.T. Curran, Edward E. Tredget

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic Surgery · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndotracheal tubeLoop (graph theory)Tube (container)MedicineMedical emergencyAnesthesiaEngineeringMechanical engineeringMathematicsIntubation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stabilization of endotracheal tubes in the burn population presents many problems. Access to the face for dressings, debridements, and the use of topical antimicrobials prevent adequate stabilization of the endotracheal tube with commonly used methods. Conventional methods have an increased risk of shifting, which can lead to injury to the friable burned tissue or unplanned extubation. To prevent these complications, alternative methods using the dentition to stabilize the endotracheal tube have been described. Here, we present our technique of using Ivy loops to secure the endotracheal tube. It is a simple method with low complications that provides a strong stabilization of the tube while giving access to the face.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic SurgerySame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207