Identifying Predictors of Airway Complications During Conscious Sedation Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conscious sedation procedures are complicated by unanticipated airway compromise and obstruction. The STOP-Bang questionnaire (University of Toronto, 2012) is a validated obstructive sleep apnea screening questionnaire used as a preprocedure evaluation tool to assess a patient's risk for obstructive sleep apnea. The purpose of this study was to determine whether risk factors for obstructive sleep apnea, using the STOP-Bang questionnaire, could predict procedural airway complications in 152 endoscopy patients following conscious sedation. Logistic regression analysis revealed that a STOP-Bang score of greater than 5 (high risk) predicted a 10% change in heart rate (p = .021), apnea (p = .038), and arousal-relieved airway obstruction (p = .023). Every point of increase in body mass index predicted a 10% change in heart rate (p = .046), a drop in oxygen saturation (p = .002), apnea (p = .003), and 1.212 times the odds of requiring arousal-relieved airway obstruction (p = .002). An intermediate-risk STOP-Bang score (3-4) positively correlated to abnormal carbon dioxide values during the procedure (p = .015). These findings concur with existing literature on the topic and translate to clinical considerations of procedural monitoring protocols for patients with a high probability for airway complications during conscious sedation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".