A single-centre case series assessing the Ambu(®) aScope™ 2 for percutaneous tracheostomies: A viable alternative to fibreoptic bronchoscopes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bronchoscope-assisted bedside percutaneous tracheostomy is increasingly common in the intensive care unit (ICU). Fiberoptic bronchoscopes (FOBs) are expensive, fragile and may be damaged in the busy ICU environment. The Ambu (®) aScope™ 2 is a disposable video bronchoscope with no suction port that may be an alternative. METHODS: The present analysis was a single-centre, prospective, quality improvement series substitution of Ambu (®) aScope™ 2 for FOB during percutaneous bedside tracheostomy with a FOB readily available. Physicians could elect not to use the Ambu (®) aScope™ 2. RESULTS: The Ambu® aScope™ 2 was used in 22 of 30 percutaneous bedside tracheostomies between September 9, 2012 and January 3, 2013. One conversion to an FOB occurred during the 22 procedures due to bleeding, resulting in a convfersion rate of approximately 5%. The rate of completion of the postprocedure questionnaire was 73% (16 of 22), with a mean 'ease of use' score of 8.19/10 (range 6/10 to 10/10) and a mean 'visualization' score of 6.1/10 (range 2/10 to 10/10). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: Ambu® aScope™ 2 was a reasonable alternative to FOB in a selected group of patients for bedside ICU PDT. Use of this new disposable scope will depend on local factors, processing delays and cost.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".