MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416959635 · doi:10.1213/xaa.0000000000002110

Comparison of Endotracheal Intubation Performance Using Video Laryngoscopy With and Without AI-Based Visual Assistance: A Manikin Pilot Study

2025· article· en· W4416959635 on OpenAlexaff
Georgiy Danylenko, Sean Jeffries, Éric Pelletier, Oliver Cafferty, Emma Rispler, Pascal Laferrière-Langlois, Thomas M. Hemmerling

Bibliographic record

VenueA&A Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaryngoscopyEndotracheal intubationIntubationVideo recordingLaryngoscopes

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated whether artificial intelligence (AI)-based visual assistance in video laryngoscopy (VL) could be a solution to reduce the technique's learning curve. Twenty volunteers with no prior intubation experience were randomly assigned to 2 equal groups: standard VL or AI-enhanced VL (AI-VL). Participants performed 10 consecutive intubations. The AI-VL group showed a trend toward steeper learning curves for intubation time (P > .05). The AI system functioned as a real-time virtual instructor, which provided visual feedback that helped maintain Cormack-Lehane (C-L) views.

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)0.001
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 score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.378 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueA&A PracticeSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207