Securing and Mobilizing an Esophageal Mass before and after Endotracheal Intubation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Education| July 2021 Securing and Mobilizing an Esophageal Mass before and after Endotracheal Intubation Wenxi Tang, M.D.; Wenxi Tang, M.D. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Penghui Wei, M.D.; Penghui Wei, M.D. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Jiapeng Huang, M.D., Ph.D.; Jiapeng Huang, M.D., Ph.D. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Jianjun Li, M.D., Ph.D. Jianjun Li, M.D., Ph.D. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1304-3969 Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Author and Article Information From the Department of Anesthesiology (W.T., P.W., J.L.), Qilu Hospital (Qingdao), Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Qingdao, Shandong, China; Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine (J.H.), University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky. Published online first on April 15, 2021. Address correspondence to Prof. Li: ljj9573@163.com Anesthesiology July 2021, Vol. 135, 152–153. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000003786 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Cite Icon Cite Get Permissions Search Site Citation Wenxi Tang, Penghui Wei, Jiapeng Huang, Jianjun Li; Securing and Mobilizing an Esophageal Mass before and after Endotracheal Intubation. Anesthesiology 2021; 135:152–153 doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000003786 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll PublicationsAnesthesiology Search Advanced Search Topics: endotracheal intubation, esophageal neoplasms A patient was scheduled for upper esophagus tumor resection under general anesthesia. A large mass (14 × 2 × 2 cm) was found in the esophagus (panel A). The mass could be regurgitated freely to the mouth (panel B) and swallowed back into the esophagus. The patient denied significant difficulty breathing or swallowing. To achieve the surgical view with suspension laryngoscopy, the surgeon requested that the mass be kept in the mouth intraoperatively. Awake intubation was discussed because of a concern for airway compromise after induction but not performed due to patient refusal. Instead, tracheal intubation was performed after induction. To ensure the mass was swallowed into the esophagus during induction/intubation and pulled back into the mouth for surgery after intubation, the tip of the tumor was anchored with a suture after topicalization and before induction... Copyright © 2021, the American Society of Anesthesiologists. All Rights Reserved.2021 You do not currently have access to this content.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.020 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".