Interventions to enable communication for adult patients requiring an artificial airway with or without mechanical ventilator support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: The primary objective of this review is to assess the effectiveness of communication aids for patients requiring an artificial airway (endotracheal or tracheostomy tube), defined as the proportion of patients able to: use a non‐vocal communication aid to communicate at least one symptom, need or preference; or use a voice enabling communication aid to phonate to produce at least one intelligible word. Secondary objectives are to assess the effects on: time to communication (non‐vocal aid) of a symptom, need or preference or time to phonation of intelligible speech (voice enabling aid); patient and/or communication partner (family, friend, caregiver or healthcare professional with whom a patient may interact) reported perceptions of communication including: ease/difficulty, satisfaction/frustration, aid/technique usability and acceptability/unacceptability; communication frequency, quality, success, and efficiency; health‐related quality of life/satisfaction with life; emotional and psychological distress; length of stay and healthcare utilisation costs; and adverse events including: respiratory instability (altered respiratory rate; oxygen desaturation); haemodynamic instability (tachy/bradycardia; hyper/hypotension); need for tracheostomy change; use of physical restraints; treatment interference.
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 | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.002 |
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".