MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048693941 · doi:10.1111/anae.15224

Measurement of airway pressure during high‐flow nasal therapy in apnoeic oxygenation: a randomised controlled crossover trial <sup>*</sup>

2020· article· en· W3048693941 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaAirwayCrossover studyCatheterBreathingSurgeryPlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary It is recognised that high‐flow nasal therapy can prevent desaturation during airway management. Studies in spontaneously breathing patients show an almost linear relationship between flow rate and positive airway pressure in the nasopharynx. Positive airway pressure has been suggested as one of the possible mechanisms explaining how high‐flow nasal therapy works. However, data on pressures generated by high‐flow nasal therapy in apnoeic adults under general anaesthesia are absent. This randomised controlled crossover trial investigated airway pressures generated by different flow rates during high‐flow nasal therapy in anaesthetised and paralysed apnoeic patients, comparing pressures with closed and open mouths. Following induction of anaesthesia and neuromuscular blockade, a continuous jaw thrust was used to enable airway patency. Airway pressure was measured in the right main bronchus, the middle of the trachea and the pharynx, using a fibreoptically‐placed catheter connected to a pressure transducer. Each measurement was randomised with respect to closed or open mouth and different flow rates. Twenty patients undergoing elective surgery were included (mean (SD) age 38 (18) years, BMI 25.0 (3.3) kg.m ‐2 , nine women, ASA physical status 1 (35%), 2 (55%), 3 (10%). While closed mouths and increasing flow rates demonstrated non‐linear increases in pressure, the pressure increase was negligible with an open mouth. Airway pressures remained below 10 cmH 2 O even with closed mouths and flow rates up to 80 l.min −1 ; they were not influenced by catheter position. This study shows an increase in airway pressures with closed mouths that depends on flow rate. The generated pressure is negligible with an open mouth. These data question positive airway pressure as an important mechanism for maintenance of oxygenation during apnoea.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.229 · 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