High-flow Nasal Oxygen Versus Standard Flow Facemask Preoxygenation in Pregnant Patients: A Randomized Physiological Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
( Anaesthesia . 2019;75:450–456) While preoxygenation is an important component of safe general anesthesia, it is often suboptimal for obstetric patients. This is due to several factors including air entrainment even with a tight-fitting mask, the need for rapid delivery of the fetus in many situations, and human factor issues. For obstetric patients, an end-tidal oxygen concentration (EtO 2 ) ≥90% is recommended before initiating rapid sequence induction and tracheal intubation. The standard practice for preoxygenation in this population is usually either 3 minutes of tidal volume breathing or 8 vital capacity breaths with facemask administration of 100% oxygen at 15 L/min. Growing in popularity for nonobstetric patients, including children, is high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) to increase the time to desaturation during induction of general anesthesia; however, literature on HFNO for obstetric patients is sparse. This study aimed to determine whether preoxygenation with HFNO (30 to 70 L/min oxygen flow) via nasal prongs is as effective as the recommended preoxygenation using standard 15 L/min oxygen administered via a tight-fitting facemask in obstetric patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".