ArticlePloS one2026
An ultrasound-based artificial intelligence framework for difficult airway prediction: A two-model, three-step decision framework.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent advances in artificial intelligence across interventional pulmonology: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Airway Management: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Cureus · 2026Review
- Machine learning-based prediction of difficult laryngoscopy in infants with Pierre Robin sequence using quantitative 3D computed tomography parameters.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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
backgroundAt present, the early warning of difficult airway remains fraught with challenges. Previous ultrasonic quantitative parameters have demonstrated favorable application potential in difficult airway assessment, and deep learning techniques have also exhibited satisfactory performance in the interpretation of this condition. Based on this, we aim to construct a "two-model, three-step" hierarchical strategy, develop an ultrasound image-based artificial intelligence (AI) framework for difficult airway prediction, and conduct its internal validation.
methodsIn this study, we included 903 patients who underwent elective general anesthesia surgery at the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University between May 2024 and April 2025. 752 cases were used for model training and validation, and 151 cases served as an internal test set. Four planes of neck ultrasound images were scanned for each patient and used to develop two artificial intelligence models (based on convolutional neural networks): CL-AI for initial screening and VIDIAC-AI for secondary risk stratification. Model performance was evaluated using five-fold cross-validation and internal testing. External validation was not performed.
resultsAmong 903 patients, difficult laryngoscopy occurred in 189 cases (20.9%) under direct laryngoscopy and in 50 cases (5.5%) under video laryngoscopy. In the independent test set, the CL-AI model achieved an AUC of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.79-0.91), with an accuracy of 0.84, sensitivity of 0.84, specificity of 0.84, precision of 0.59, and an F1 score of 0.69. The VIDIAC-AI model achieved an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.75-0.88), with an accuracy of 0.81, sensitivity of 0.75, specificity of 0.81, precision of 0.18, and an F1 score of 0.29.
conclusionsThis study proposes an ultrasound-based AI framework for risk stratification of difficult laryngoscopic exposure. The Two-Model, Three-Step decision framework is intended as a clinician decision-support tool, not an independent diagnostic method, and requires further validation in large multicenter cohorts.
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.