ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
A novel AI-guided and motorized videolaryngoscope aiming to democratize endotracheal intubation.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Videolaryngoscopy has improved glottic visualization during intubation, but difficulties in tube advancement and hand-eye coordination continue to limit procedural efficiency. These ergonomic challenges contribute to failed intubations even when visualization is adequate. The present study evaluated a novel artificial intelligence guided and motorized videolaryngoscope (AI-VL) designed to reduce manual dexterity demands and operator workload. Methods: A preclinical validation was conducted using 5 Thiel-embalmed cadavers. Three operators with varying airway experience performed 30 intubations using the AI-VL. Primary outcomes were first-attempt success rate, intubation time, and visible airway trauma. Secondary outcomes included operator workload using the weighted NASA task load index (NASA-TLX) and post-procedural usability Likert questionnaire. Results: First-attempt success was 100% across all procedures, with a median intubation time of 14.3 s (IQR 11.0-22.8) and no visible tissue injury. The weighted NASA-TLX global workload was 29.1 ± 6.7 (0-100 scale), below the 25th percentile of published medical task norms, indicating low to moderate perceived demand. Mean usability ratings were 4.3 ± 0.6 on 5, with the highest scores for likelihood of clinical adoption and training suitability, 4.7 ± 0.6 and 5.0 ± 0.0 respectively. Conclusion: In this cadaveric study, the AI-VL preliminarily demonstrated consistent procedural success, short intubation times, relatively low operator workload, and high usability scores. These findings support its potential as a next generation videolaryngoscope and indicates the need for further clinical trials to explore its effectiveness across diverse clinical settings.
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.