ArticleHeliyon2022
Comparative analysis of popular predictors for difficult laryngoscopy using hybrid intelligent detection methods.
Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Difficult laryngoscopy is associated with airway injury, and asphyxia. There are no guidelines or gold standards for detecting difficult laryngoscopy. There are many opinions on which predictors to use to detect difficult laryngoscopy exposure, and no comprehensively unified comparative analysis has been conducted. The efficacy and accuracy of deep learning (DL)-based models and machine learning (ML)-based models for predicting difficult laryngoscopy need to be evaluated and compared, under the circumstance that the flourishing of deep neural networks (DNN) has increasingly left ML less concentrated and uncreative. For the first time, the performance of difficult laryngoscopy prediction for a dataset of 671 patients, under single index and integrated multiple indicators was consistently verified under seven ML-based models and four DL-based approaches. The top dog was a simple traditional machine learning model, Naïve Bayes, outperforming DL-based models, the best test accuracy is 86.6%, the F1 score is 0.908, and the average precision score is 0.837. Three radiological variables of difficult laryngoscopy were all valuable separately and combinedly and the ranking was presented. There is no significant difference in performance among the three radiological indicators individually (83.06% vs. 83.20% vs. 83.33%) and comprehensively (83.74%), suggesting that anesthesiologists can flexibly choose appropriate measurement indicators according to the actual situation to predict difficult laryngoscopy. Adaptive spatial interaction was imposed to the model to boost the performance of difficult laryngoscopy prediction with preoperative cervical spine X-ray.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.