A comparison between the GlideScope <sup>®</sup> Video Laryngoscope and direct laryngoscope in paediatric patients with difficult airways – a pilot study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The GlideScope Video Laryngoscope may improve the view seen at laryngoscopy in adults who have a difficult airway. Manikin studies and case reports suggest it may also be useful in children, although prospective studies are limited in number. We hypothesised that the paediatric GlideScope will result in an improved view seen at laryngoscopy in children with a known difficult airway, compared to direct laryngoscopy. Eighteen children with a history of difficult or failed intubation were prospectively recruited. After inhalational induction, each patient had laryngoscopy performed using a standard blade followed by GlideScope videolaryngoscopy. The GlideScope yielded a significantly improved laryngoscopic view, both with (p = 0.003) and without (p = 0.004) laryngeal pressure. The mean (SD) time taken to achieve the optimal view was 20 (8)s using conventional laryngoscopy and 26 (22)s using the GlideScope (p = 0.5). The GlideScope significantly improves the laryngoscopic view obtained in children with a difficult airway.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it