Ultrasonography and Videobronchoscopy to Assess the Subglottic Diameter in the Paediatric Population: A First Look
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of ultrasonography and videobronchoscopy in measuring the subglottic diameter in the paediatric population. DESIGN: A double-blinded, prospective clinical study carried out at the Montreal Children's Hospital, McGill University. METHODS: Children undergoing non-life-threatening bronchoscopy for various reasons had the subglottic diameters measured with ultrasonography, videobronchoscopy, and the traditional method of endotracheal tube sizing during the operative period. Ten patients were enrolled in the study. Parental consent was obtained prior to the procedure. RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed that although ultrasonography was highly correlated with both videobronchoscopy and endotracheal tube sizing in measuring the subglottic diameter in the paediatric population, the measurements were not accurate in giving an exact value of the diameters in question. Videobronchoscopy was found to highly correlate with endotracheal tube sizing but had values that were slightly larger. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to examine the ability of ultrasonography and videobronchoscopy in evaluating the subglottic diameter in the paediatric population. Videobronchoscopy was shown to correlate highly with the present standard of measurement, namely, endotracheal tube sizing. The difference in measurement between the two was shown to be statistically significant, with videobronchoscopy being the consistently larger of the two. These results are in keeping with the limitations of measurement by the endotracheal tube. Similarly, ultrasonography was also correlated with both videobronchoscopy and endotracheal tube sizing. In contrast, ultrasonography was found to provide measurements that were significantly smaller than the other two methods. This suggests that ultrasonography may be a good technique to follow the change in lesions of the subglottis but may be poor for absolute measurements of this area as it always underestimated the size of the lumen.
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 | 0.020 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".