MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3129110613 · doi:10.29390/cjrt-2020-039

Alternative to traditional noninvasive ventilation using a modified snorkel mask in a patient with SARS-COV2: A case report

2021· article· en· W3129110613 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Raúl Montalvo, Eyner Castro, Alvaro Chavez

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVentilation (architecture)Mechanical ventilationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Acute respiratory failureRespiratory failureIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaDiseaseInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The lack of mechanical ventilators for patients with COVID-19 has necessitated the use of other noninvasive ventilation (NIV) systems. One of these NIV systems is the use of an adapted snorkel mask with inspiration valves and pressure valve (PEEP). CASE AND OUTCOMES: A 48-year-old man with no previous history of lung disease was admitted to the emergency room with a diagnosis of acute respiratory failure due to SARS-COV2. The patient did not improve saturation with the use of the reservoir mask. Oxygenation was started using an adapted snorkel mask with a PEEP valve with an alveolar recruitment function and double oxygen flow. The patient presented clinical and radiological improvement after 2 days of use and was discharged 16 days later. DISCUSSION: The use of a snorkel mask is an important, viable, and simpler NIV modality for the management of patients with COVID-19 with respiratory failure who fail to use a reservoir mask, and it can be an alternative before the use of a mechanical ventilator. CONCLUSION: The use of the adapted snorkel mask with Charlotte valve and PEEP is a feasible alternative for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Respiratory TherapySame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207