Ultrasound and a new videobronchoscopic technique to measure the subglottic diameter.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate ultrasound (US) and a new videobronchoscopic (VB) technique in the measurement of the subglottic lumen diameter. DESIGN: This blind prospective animal study of 62 recently sacrificed rabbits was conducted at the Montreal Children's Hospital. METHODS: Three different diameter measurements of the subglottis were assessed using B-mode US on each intact animal. The same diameter measurements, as well as a fourth, were estimated with a VB measuring technique. Finally, the subglottic area was surgically exposed allowing for direct caliper measurements of all four corresponding diameters. All three US measurements on each of the 62 rabbits and all four VB measurements on each of the 60 rabbits were compared with the gold standard corresponding caliper measurements. RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed strikingly convergent values in subglottic lumen diameter measurements using US and calipers. The mean difference between these methods for all 186 observations was 0.11 mm. With 95% confidence, the maximum discordance was less than 0.30 mm on the smallest evaluated lumen. Convergent values were also demonstrated in subglottic lumen diameter measurements using VB and calipers. The mean difference between these methods for all 240 observations was 0.16 mm. With 95% confidence, the maximum discordance was less than 0.37 mm on the smallest evaluated lumen. Pearson's correlation coefficient supported a strong and positive relationship between US and caliper measurements as well as VB and caliper measurements. Simple linear regression model indicated that the subglottic lumen diameter could be predicted by both US and our VB technique. CONCLUSION: This work represents the first attempt to validate B-mode US and a VB technique as measuring tools for the subglottic lumen diameter. Our results have clearly shown that both methods are precise measuring modalities for this purpose. With further studies, these two objective methods of measuring the subglottic diameter could be adopted universally. The precise knowledge of this diameter could help physicians recognize and describe the severity of a narrowed lumen. Reporting results in such a standardized fashion, by either US or VB, could facilitate communication among clinicians and institutions.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".