Risk orientation predicts hypoxic time during difficult airway simulation: a mixed-methods pilot study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Personality factors may explain some of the practice variation observed in medicine. In this pilot study, we used simulation to investigate the relationship between risk orientation and airway management. We hypothesised that higher risk tolerance would predict earlier intervention. Ten emergency medicine residents from the University of Alberta participated in a standardised difficult airway simulation. There was a constant rate of oxygen desaturation necessitating eventual airway intervention. A debriefing interview and a risk orientation questionnaire followed. Time of hypoxia prior to intervention was the outcome measure. Audio interview transcripts underwent thematic analysis. Nine participants were included; one did not complete the simulation as instructed. Higher risk tolerance predicted longer hypoxic time prior to intubation (r=0.72, p=0.03). Theme analysis revealed consistent fears regarding patient instability and chances of a failed airway intervention. Patient instability was emphasised more so by those who intervened earlier. We show that personality characteristics influence resuscitation decision-making at an early stage of training. Trainees may therefore be susceptible to certain types of medical error based on their risk aversion. Implications for resident training, care quality and patient safety are discussed.
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 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 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it