Machine Learning Approaches for Predicting Difficult Airway and First-Pass Success in the Emergency Department: Multicenter Prospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is still room for improvement in the modified LEMON (look, evaluate, Mallampati, obstruction, neck mobility) criteria for difficult airway prediction and no prediction tool for first-pass success in the emergency department (ED). OBJECTIVE: We applied modern machine learning approaches to predict difficult airways and first-pass success. METHODS: In a multicenter prospective study that enrolled consecutive patients who underwent tracheal intubation in 13 EDs, we developed 7 machine learning models (eg, random forest model) using routinely collected data (eg, demographics, initial airway assessment). The outcomes were difficult airway and first-pass success. Model performance was evaluated using c-statistics, calibration slopes, and association measures (eg, sensitivity) in the test set (randomly selected 20% of the data). Their performance was compared with the modified LEMON criteria for difficult airway success and a logistic regression model for first-pass success. RESULTS: Of 10,741 patients who underwent intubation, 543 patients (5.1%) had a difficult airway, and 7690 patients (71.6%) had first-pass success. In predicting a difficult airway, machine learning models-except for k-point nearest neighbor and multilayer perceptron-had higher discrimination ability than the modified LEMON criteria (all, P≤.001). For example, the ensemble method had the highest c-statistic (0.74 vs 0.62 with the modified LEMON criteria; P<.001). Machine learning models-except k-point nearest neighbor and random forest models-had higher discrimination ability for first-pass success. In particular, the ensemble model had the highest c-statistic (0.81 vs 0.76 with the reference regression; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning models demonstrated greater ability for predicting difficult airway and first-pass success in the ED.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".