More on Barrier Enclosure during Endotracheal Intubation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More on Barrier Enclosure during Endotracheal IntubationTo the Editor: We think the barrier enclosure described in the letter by Canelli and coworkers (published online in the Journal on April 3) 1 decreases rather than increases safety, especially under emergency conditions.The authors briefly mention that their "aerosol box" restricts hand movement.This restriction is true both for the person performing intubation and for assistants, and it must not be understated.Also, heavy and bulky plexiglass is difficult to carry and position or reposition in emergency situations.These operator conditions are especially worrisome for patients with rapid desaturation, those who are difficult to intubate, or both, since they frequently require quick, additional manipulations and rescue mask ventilation between intubation attempts.The aerosol box also introduces another contaminated device that must be properly handled during use and disinfected between uses to prevent cross-contamination.The box probably redirects droplets and aerosols toward the foot of the bed, and all staff in the room are still exposed to them; thus, the authors' model is inaccurate.We think this technique is unvalidated, does not reduce risk, and probably has unintended safety consequences.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 |
| 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".