Trainees success rates with intubation to suction meconium at birth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the success rate and main reasons for failure of intubation performed by medical trainees to suction meconium below the vocal cords in non-vigorous infants delivered at ≥36 week gestation. DESIGN: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving 54 residents and nine neonatology fellows in a Canadian level 3 neonatal intensive care unit. Endotracheal intubation to suction meconium was performed using a videolaryngoscope, the video screen being covered during the procedure. All videos were reviewed by two experts blinded to the procedure and to the identity of the trainee. RESULTS: Sixteen videos were available to review between July 2014 and March 2016. Intubation success rate assessed by the reviewers was 6%, compared with 21% as assessed by the trainees. The most common reasons for intubation failure were an improper view of the glottis (87%) and meconium or secretions obscuring the view (67%). 36 % of the time, the trainees identified different reasons for intubation failure than the reviewers. CONCLUSION: Success rate of neonatal intubation to suction meconium was much lower than the success rate reported on infants without meconium. Teaching should be geared towards the most common reasons for intubation failure, possibly using video-based teaching.
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 | 0.006 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".