A Tiny Baby Intubation Team Improves Endotracheal Intubation Success Rate but Decreases Residents’ Training Opportunities.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: Assess the educational and clinical impact of a tiny baby intubation team (TBIT).Study Design: Retrospective study comparing endotracheal intubation (ETI) performed: pre-implementation of a TBIT (T1), six months post-implementation (T2), and four years post-implementation (T3).Results: Post-implementation of a TBIT, first attempt success rate in tiny babies increased (44% in T1 vs. 59% in T2; p=0.046) and the proportion of ETIs performed by residents decreased (53% in T1 vs. 37% in T2; p=0.002). After an educational quality improvement intervention (prioritizing non-tiny baby ETIs to residents, systematic simulation training and ETI using videolaryngoscopy), residents’ overall (63% in T2 vs. 79% in T3; p=0.03) and non-tiny baby ETI success rate improved (63% in T2 vs. 82% in T3; p=0.02).Conclusion: A TBIT improves success rate of ETIs in ELBW infants but decreases educational exposure of residents. Educational strategies helps maintain residents’ procedural exposure without impacting on quality of care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".