Comparison of Sonography and Computed Tomography as Imaging Tools for Assessment of Airway Structures
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
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare airway anatomic parameters as measured by sonography and computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Fifteen adult patients underwent CT followed by sonography of the anterior neck under standard conditions. A radiologist and an anesthesiologist with experience in airway imaging examined the scans and performed measurements of specific airway parameters: distance to the posterior surface of the tongue, thickness of the submental region, hyomental distance, depth of the epiglottis from skin (above and below the hyoid bone), thyrohyoid distance, depth of the arytenoid cartilage from skin, and fat pad thickness at the thyroid cartilage. After performing the measurements, they compared the images by the two modalities for descriptions of the structures. Means and SDs were calculated for the measurements, and a paired t test was performed to determine statistically significant differences in the measurements by sonography and CT. RESULTS: The means of all parameters were closely related except hyomental distance (sonography, 5.23 ± 0.58 cm; CT, 3.50 ± 0.42 cm). The paired t test showed that the mean values for depth of the epiglottis below the hyoid (3.89 versus 4.17 cm; P = .31), thyrohyoid distance (1.03 versus 1.02 cm; P = .95), and depth of the arytenoid cartilage (2.90 versus 2.66 cm; P = .21) were not significantly different as measured by sonography and CT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that sonography can reliably image all of the structures visualized by CT, and in general, infrahyoid parameters agree well between the two modalities, as opposed to suprahyoid parameters, which may be affected by unintentional head extension.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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