Does the Number of Fingers on the Bag Influence Volume Delivery? A Randomized Model Study of Bag-Valve-Mask Ventilation in Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to compare the effectiveness of two versus five fingers used for bag-valve-mask (BVM) ventilation on effective tidal volume (VTeff) delivery in an infant resuscitation model. In a randomised cross-over study, 40 healthcare professionals ventilated a modified leak-free infant resuscitation manikin with both two and five fingers, using a self-inflating bag. The delivered and effective tidal volumes, ventilation rate, and mask leak were measured and recorded using a respiratory function monitor. We found no significant differences in the VTeff (five-finger 61.7 ± 23.9 vs. two-finger 58.8 ± 16.6 mL; p = 0.35) or ventilatory minute volume (2.71 ± 1.59 vs. 2.76 ± 1.24 L/min; p = 0.40) of both BVM ventilation techniques. However, there was an increase in the delivered tidal volume (VTdel) and mask leak when using the five-finger technique compared with the two-finger technique (VTdel 96.1 ± 19.4 vs. 87.7 ± 15.5 mL; p < 0.01; and mask leak 34.6 ± 23.0 vs. 30.0 ± 21.0%; p = 0.02). Although the five-finger technique was associated with an increased mask leak, the number of fingers used during the BVM ventilation had no effect on VTeff in an infant resuscitation model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".