Three‐finger tracheal palpation to guide endotracheal tube depth in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate endotracheal tube (ETT) depth is critical, especially in children. The current tools used to guide appropriate ETT depth have significant limitations. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the utility of tracheal palpation in the neck to guide appropriate ETT placement in children. METHODS: A prospective observational study with a convenience sample of 50 children was conducted. During intubation, an investigator palpated the trachea with three fingertips side-by-side extending upward from the suprasternal notch. The anesthesiologist advanced the ETT slowly until palpated at the sternal notch. The investigator stated ETT palpation certainty as 'strongly felt', 'weakly felt', or 'not felt.' Final ETT position was determined by bronchoscopy and categorized as 'ETT too shallow' (tip in proximal ¼ of trachea), 'ETT too deep' (tip in distal ¼ of trachea), or 'ETT placement satisfactory' (between those extremes). RESULTS: Thirty boys and 20 girls undergoing dental surgery with nasal intubation were recruited (median age 4.4 years; range 2.0-10.8). The ETT (all ≥4 mm ID) was palpable at the sternal notch in all patients: 46 of 50 strongly palpable and 4 of 50 weakly palpable. The experimental methods led to satisfactory ETT placement in 49 of 50 patients, too deep in 1 of 50 patients. Compared with the Pediatrics Advanced Life Support (PALS) predictive formula, satisfactory placement would have been 41 of 50 patients (P < 0.008). Number needed to treat is 6.3 for improvement over the PALS method. CONCLUSIONS: The use of tracheal palpation to guide ETT placement has excellent clinical performance and better guides appropriate ETT depth than the PALS formula in our study population.
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 | 0.001 | 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".