MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906344439 · doi:10.21466/ac.mvpidli.2016

McGrathMAC versus ProAct illumination during laryngoscopy in a pre‐hospital patient with maxillofacial trauma

2016· article· en· W2906344439 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Gillespie, Mark Dunn

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia Cases · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsBarrie Urology Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaryngoscopyAnesthesiaMedicineIntubation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary During a case of pre‐hospital anaesthesia, the presence of dried oropharyngeal blood from maxillo‐facial trauma was found to adversely affect illumination when using the McGrath® MAC enhanced direct laryngoscope, using both direct laryngoscopy and video‐laryngoscopy via its LCD screen. A second attempt using direct laryngoscopy with a standard battery handle operated laryngoscope (ProAct®Metal Max 100) was noted to provide far superior light quality, intensity and spread. Subsequent comparison of light under basic test conditions demonstrated lower luminance and spread of light with the McGrath® MAC when compared with the standard ProAct® (both with Macintosh size 4 attachments).

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesia CasesSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207