Outcome measures for pediatric laryngotracheal reconstruction: International consensus statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Develop multidisciplinary and international consensus on patient, disease, procedural, and perioperative factors, as well as key outcome measures and complications, to be reported for pediatric airway reconstruction studies. METHODS: Standard Delphi methods were applied. Participants proposed items in three categories: 1) patient/disease characteristics, 2) procedural/intraoperative/perioperative factors, and 3) outcome measures and complications. Both general and anatomic site-specific measures were elicited. Participants also suggested specific operations to be encompassed by this project. We then used iterative ranking and review to develop consensus lists via a priori Delphi consensus criteria. RESULTS: Thirty-three pediatric airway experts from eight countries in North and South America, Europe, and Australia participated, representing otolaryngology (including International Pediatric Otolaryngology Group members), pulmonology, general surgery, and cardiothoracic surgery. Consensus led to inclusion of 19 operations comprising open expansion, resection, and slide procedures of the larynx, trachea, and bronchi as well as three endoscopic procedures. Consensus was achieved on multiple patient/comorbidity (10), disease/stenosis (7), perioperative-/intraoperative-/procedure-related (16) factors. Consensus was reached on multiple outcome and complication measures, both general and site-specific (8 general, 13 supraglottic, 15 glottic, 17 subglottic, 8 cervical tracheal, 12 thoracic tracheal). The group was able to clarify how each outcome should be measured, with specific instruments defined where applicable. CONCLUSION: This consensus statement provides a framework to communicate results consistently and reproducibly, facilitating meta-analyses, quality improvement, transfer of information, and surgeon self-assessment. It also clarifies expert opinion on which patient, disease, procedural, and outcome measures may be important to consider in any pediatric airway reconstruction patient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 Laryngoscope, 129:244-255, 2019.
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 | 0.282 | 0.234 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".