MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160513755 · doi:10.1002/lary.29616

Length of the Cricoid and Trachea in Children: Predicting Intubation Depth to Prevent Subglottic Stenosis

2021· article· en· W3160513755 on OpenAlexaff
Evan J. Propst, Jonah H. Gorodensky, Nikolaus E. Wolter

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Laryngoscope · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubglottisMedicineSubglottic stenosisCuffIntubationLaryngoscopyGlottisLarynxCricoid cartilageAirwayStenosisSurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective Define the length of the subglottis and trachea in children to predict a safe intubation depth. Methods Patients <18 years undergoing rigid bronchoscopy from 2013 to 2020 were included. The carina and inferior borders of the cricoid and true vocal folds were marked on a bronchoscope and distances were measured. Patient age, weight, height, and chest height were recorded. Four styles of cuffed pediatric endotracheal tubes (ETT) were measured and potential positions of each cuff and tip were calculated within each trachea using five depth of intubation scenarios. Multivariate linear regression was performed to identify predictors of subglottic and tracheal length. Results Measurements were obtained from 210 children (141 male, 69 female), mean (SD) age 3.21 (3.66) years. Patient height was the best predictor of subglottic length ( R 2 : 0.418): Length sg (mm) = 0.058 * height (cm) + 2.8 , and tracheal length ( R 2 : 0.733): Length t (mm) = 0.485 * height (cm) + 21.3. None of the depth of intubation scenarios maintained a cuff‐free subglottis for all ETT styles investigated. A formula for depth of intubation: Length di (mm) = 0.06 * height (cm) + 8.8 found that no ETT cuffs would be in the subglottis and all tips would be above the carina. Conclusion Current strategies for determining appropriate depth of intubation pose a high risk of subglottic ETT cuff placement. Placing the inferior border of the vocal cords 0.06 * height (cm) + 8.8 from the superior border of the inflated ETT cuff may prevent subglottic cuff placement and endobronchial intubation. Level of Evidence 4 Laryngoscope , 132:S1–S10, 2022

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe LaryngoscopeSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207