Team Stress and Adverse Events during Neonatal Tracheal Intubations: A Report from NEAR4NEOS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to examine the association between team stress level and adverse tracheal intubation (TI)-associated events during neonatal intubations. Study Design TIs from 10 academic neonatal intensive care units were analyzed. Team stress level was rated immediately after TI using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = high stress). Associations among team stress, adverse TI-associated events, and TI characteristics were evaluated. Result In this study, 208 of 2,009 TIs (10%) had high stress levels (score < 4). Oxygenation failure, hemodynamic instability, and family presence were associated with high stress level. Video laryngoscopy and premedication were associated with lower stress levels. High stress level TIs were associated with adverse TI-associated event rates (31 vs. 16%, p < 0.001), which remained significant after adjusting for potential confounders including patient, provider, and practice factors associated with high stress (odds ratio: 1.90, 96% confidence interval: 1.36–2.67, p < 0.001). Conclusion High team stress levels during TI were more frequently reported among TIs with adverse events.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".