MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4242750197 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511760310.020

The lost airway

2010· book-chapter· en· W4242750197 on OpenAlexaff
C. Frerk, P. Gauthama

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAirwayIntubationLaryngoscopySurgeryAirway obstructionTracheal intubationAnesthesiaAirway managementBlunt traumaComplication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Iatrogenic airway injury is mostly caused by laryngoscopy, visualisation of the laryngeal inlet, the placement of a tracheal tube and long-term intubation. Damage to teeth during laryngoscopy is the commonest cause of civil action against anaesthetists. Iatrogenic laryngeal trauma occurs mostly in patients undergoing routine, non-difficult, short-term tracheal intubation. Tracheal intubation-related neuropraxia of the lingual, hypoglossal, and laryngeal nerves have been described. Airway stenosis occurs at any level within the airway following tracheal intubation. Pharyngeal or oesophageal perforation is a serious complication of aerodigestive tract instrumentation, and is associated with a greater severity of injury and risk of mortality than other iatrogenic airway injuries. Trauma to the airway can be broadly classified into two types: external laryngeal trauma which includes blunt and penetrating injuries, and internal airway trauma which includes thermal, caustic and iatrogenic injuries. Non-iatrogenic airway trauma is rare but often life-threatening.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.024

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques→French-language works237,207→