MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990975643 · doi:10.1177/1945892419892182

Too Hot to Handle—Quantifying Temperature Variations in the Nasal Endoscope Ocular Assembly and Light Post

2019· article· en· W2990975643 on OpenAlexaff
Trevor A. Lewis, Marc Levin, Doron D. Sommer

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Rhinology and Allergy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNasal Surgery and Airway Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndoscopeMedicineLight sourceSurgeryCordAnesthesiaOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Nasal endoscopes have transformed and improved the safety of intranasal and transnasal surgery. The heat they can produce may, however, reach dangerous levels for surgeons. Studies have not previously assessed the temperature of the nasal endoscope light post/ocular assembly (LP/OA)—where the surgeon usually holds the endoscope. Objective This study aims to understand the effect of different nasal endoscopes, light sources, and light cords on the LP/OA temperature. Methods We measured the temperature at the LP/OA of various rigid nasal endoscopes at multiple time intervals over 30 minutes, as well as after turning off the light source and irrigating the LP/OA with 10 mL of saline. Results The highest temperature recorded was 67.37°C at the LP/OA at 30 minutes, using a new light cord, older endoscope, and 184-hour xenon light bulb. In every trial, the temperature of the LP/OA continually increased until 30 minutes when the light source was turned off. Statistically significant ( P < .001) temperature differences were seen in trials using the older xenon light sources. The light-emitting diode light source was significantly cooler with an older light cord regardless of the age of the scope ( P = .003). Conclusion Endoscope temperatures during sinus surgery may reach potentially dangerous levels at the LP/OA region. These temperatures may be sufficient to cause second-degree burns during normal usage. Factors associated with higher endoscope temperatures include longer times with the light source on and xenon light bulbs.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Rhinology and AllergySame topicNasal Surgery and Airway StudiesFrench-language works237,207