MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908930199 · doi:10.1177/0310057x1804600106

High Flow Humidified Nasal Oxygen in Pregnant Women

2018· review· en· W2908930199 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia and Intensive Care · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
FundersFisher and Paykel Healthcare
KeywordsMedicineInsufflationContext (archaeology)OxygenationAnesthesiaPopulationAirwayIntensive care medicineAirway management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Failed airway management in the obstetric patient undergoing general anaesthesia is associated with major sequelae for the mother and/or fetus. Effective and adequate pre-oxygenation is an important safety strategy and a recommendation in all current major airway guidelines. Pre-oxygenation practice in the obstetric population may be suboptimal based on current literature. Recently, clinical applications for high flow nasal oxygen, also known as transnasal humidified rapid insufflation ventilatory exchange or THRIVE, are expanding in the non-obstetric population and may have theoretical benefits if used for pre-oxygenation and apnoeic oxygenation in the obstetric population. We review the current literature surrounding high flow nasal oxygen relevant to the pregnant woman. We also propose a basis for potential advantages and complications for its use in this context.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.274 · 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