MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416540705 · doi:10.1016/j.resplu.2025.101156

Comparison of foreign body airway obstruction interventions among laypersons: A simulation-based, crossover, randomized controlled trial

2025· article· en· W4416540705 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueResuscitation Plus · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicForeign Body Medical Cases
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Association of Emergency Physicians
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialAirwayPsychological interventionAirway obstructionForeign body

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Foreign body airway obstruction (FBAO) is a life-threatening emergency where rapid bystander intervention is essential. Suction-based airway clearance devices like Dechoker (DC) and LifeVac (LV) are marketed alternatives to abdominal thrusts (AT), but their efficacy among laypersons is unclear. We aimed to determine which intervention (AT, DC or LV) has the greatest efficacy for FBAO relief by laypersons. Methods: We conducted a simulation-based, crossover, randomized controlled trial. Adult laypersons received standardized in-person instruction on AT, DC, and LV, then responded to three simulated FBAO events on an adult mannequin. A mixed-effects logistic regression model estimated the odds ratios (OR) of FBAO relief at one minute (primary outcome) and four minutes (secondary), adjusted for carryover effects. Skill retention was evaluated 90-120 days later without retraining. Results: Of 139 participants, 132 were eligible and randomized. Median age was 39 years (IQR: 26-56), and 66 % were female. At one minute, FBAO relief occurred in 86 % (LV), 62 % (DC), and 49 % (AT) of cases. LV had greater odds of relief than AT (OR = 12.4 [95 %CI 5.6-27.2]) and DC (OR = 5.8 [95 % CI 2.8-12.1]). Compared with AT, DC also had greater odds of relief (OR = 2.1 [95 %CI 1.2-3.8]). At four minutes, results were similar. During follow-up testing, LV remained superior to AT (OR = 97.7 [95 %CI 6.3-1549]), while DC did not. Conclusion: After brief training, LifeVac was superior to abdominal thrusts and Dechoker for simulated FBAO relief among laypersons. Research evaluating LifeVac's safety and effectiveness in a controlled clinical setting is now needed. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06227234.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.350 · 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