Use of Rigid and Flexible Bronchoscopy Among Pediatric Otolaryngologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore how rigid and flexible bronchoscopy are used in pediatric otolaryngologic practice. DESIGN: Survey. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the American Society of Pediatric Otolaryngology who practice in the United States and Canada and were listed in the membership directory were eligible. Of the 206 members, 24 practicing outside the United States or Canada and 11 without an e-mail address or a fax machine were excluded. Hence, a questionnaire was e-mailed or faxed to 171 pediatric otolaryngologists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Questions concerned the practice setting, type and number of bronchoscopies, indications, complications, and medicolegal cases. RESULTS: Responses were received from 120 subjects (70.2%), with 3 retired and 2 practicing only otology, leaving 115 respondents who completed at least some of the questionnaire. Rigid and flexible bronchoscopy were performed by 72.7% (56/77) of those in academic settings and by 71.1% (27/38) of those in group or solo practices. In the last 12 months, approximately 10 454 total bronchoscopies were performed, with 2052 flexible and 9117 rigid bronchoscopies. Stridor, suspected foreign body inhalation, and laryngomalacia were the most common indications for bronchoscopy. Of the 83 respondents practicing rigid and flexible bronchoscopy, 25 (30.1%) used both instruments to manage complex or repeated foreign bodies, 25 (30.1%) used both to manage patients with cystic fibrosis, and 15 (18.1%) used both to manage simple foreign bodies. Complications were reported by 15.7% of the respondents, the most common being arrhythmia. Familiarity with a case resulting in medicolegal action was reported by 32.2% of the respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Rigid and flexible bronchoscopy have multiple uses in pediatric otolaryngologic practice. Also, flexible bronchoscopy appears to be emerging as a more frequently used diagnostic and therapeutic tool.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".