Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39984841›Full record

ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025

Performance of machine learning models in predicting difficult laryngoscopy in the emergency department: a single-centre retrospective study comparing with conventional regression method.

Winchana Srivilaithon, Pichamon Thanasarnpaiboon

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Winchana SrivilaithonDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand. winchanas@gmail.com.
Pichamon ThanasarnpaiboonDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmergency endotracheal intubation is a critical skill for managing airway emergencies in the emergency department (ED). Accurate prediction of difficult laryngoscopy is essential for improving first-attempt success, minimizing complications, optimizing resource utilization, and enhancing patient outcomes. Traditional methods, such as the LEMON criteria, have limited predictive accuracy. Machine learning (ML) offers advanced predictive capabilities by analyzing large datasets and identifying complex variable interactions. This study aimed to develop and validate the performance of ML models for predicting difficult laryngoscopy in the ED, comparing it with a conventional regression model.

methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted on 4,370 adult patients who underwent intubation in the ED at Thammasat University Hospital. Difficult laryngoscopy was defined as a Cormack-Lehane grade III or IV. Patients were divided into development (training, 70%) and validation (testing, 30%) cohorts. Predictors of difficult laryngoscopy were identified using multivariable stepwise backward elimination logistic regression and were used to develop ML models, including Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, and XGBoost. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC), accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. Validation was performed on the validation cohort to confirm model accuracy.

resultsNine significant predictors were identified: male sex, trauma, absence of neuromuscular blocking agents, large incisors, large tongue, limited mouth opening, short thyrohyoid distance, obstructed airway, and poor neck mobility. The Random Forest model demonstrated the highest predictive performance, with an AuROC of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78-0.85), accuracy of 0.89, recall of 0.89, and F1-score of 0.87, outperforming conventional regression (AuROC 0.76, 95% CI: 0.73-0.78) and other ML models. DeLong's test confirmed a statistically significant difference in AuROC between the two models (p = 0.002). The Decision Tree showed limited performance due to overfitting, while XGBoost demonstrated strong precision. No significant differences were found when comparing the two models with conventional regression (p = 0.498 and 0.496, respectively).

conclusionThe Random Forest model provides the most robust prediction of difficult laryngoscopy, outperforming both conventional and other ML methods. While ML models improve predictive accuracy, logistic regression remains a practical option in resource-limited settings. Integrating ML into clinical workflows could enhance decision-making, resource allocation, and patient safety in emergency airway management. Future research should prioritize external validation and real-world implementation.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalIntubation, IntratrachealLaryngoscopyMachine LearningAdultAgedFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesROC CurveDifficult laryngoscopeEndotracheal intubationMachine learning model

Identifiers

PMID39984841
PMCPMC11846364

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.