Cricoid ring: Shape, size, and variability in infants and children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Knowledge regarding the shape, size, and variability of the cricoid ring is important to properly choose the correct endotracheal tube (ETT) in the pediatric patient. Studies have measured the size of the cricoid ring using methodologies such as moulages, magnetic resonance imaging, and video-bronchoscopy. In the present study, computed tomography (CT) -based images were used to determine the shape, size, and configuration of the cricoid ring in the pediatric population taking into considerations growth and development.Methods: This is a retrospective review using 130 CT images of children ranging in age from 1 month to 10 years undergoing radiological evaluation unrelated to airway symptomatology. The CT scans were obtained in spontaneously breathing patients during either natural sleep or procedural sedation. Anteroposterior (AP) and transverse (T) diameters were measured at the cricoid ring using these images.Results: The cricoid ring is generally round in children older than 1 year with a T/AP ratio ranging between 0.98 and 1.01. However, in infants (1–12 months of age), the cricoid ring is elliptical with the AP dimension an average of 0.31 mm larger than the T dimension with a T/AP ratio of 0.95. A statistically significant difference between the T and AP dimensions was only observed in infancy (P < 0.05).Conclusion: The cricoid ring is round in children older than 1 year of age. In infants, the cricoid shape presents a more elliptical configuration because the T-axis is narrower than the AP dimension. CT is recognized as the most accurate technique to study cricoid ring configuration, and the present data may help clinicians determine the appropriate type, size, and shape of ETTs, particularly in infants.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".