Glottis Recognition Software Development Using Artificial Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of video laryngoscopes has enhanced the visualization of the vocal cords, thereby improving the accessibility of tracheal intubation. Employing artificial intelligence (AI) to recognize images obtained through video laryngoscopy, particularly when marking the epiglottis and vocal cords, may elucidate anatomical structures and enhance anatomical comprehension of anatomy. This study investigates the ability of an AI model to accurately identify the glottis in video laryngoscope images captured from a manikin. Tracheal intubation was conducted on a manikin using a bronchoscope with recording capabilities, and image data of the glottis was gathered for creating an AI model. Data preprocessing and annotation of the vocal cords, epiglottis, and glottis were performed, and human annotation of the vocal cords, epiglottis, and glottis was carried out. Based on the AI's determinations, anatomical structures were color-coded for identification. The recognition accuracy of the epiglottis and vocal cords recognized by the AI model was 0.9516, which was over 95%. The AI successfully marked the glottis, epiglottis, and vocal cords during the tracheal intubation process. These markings significantly aided in the visual identification of the respective structures with an accuracy of more than 95%. The AI demonstrated the ability to recognize the epiglottis, vocal cords, and glottis using an image recognition model of a manikin.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".