ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
AI-based decision models for difficult airway assessment: from research innovation to clinical implementation-a narrative review.
Review 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Difficult airway management causes significant anesthesia-related morbidity, yet traditional assessments lack sensitivity (30%-50%) and consistency. This review (2010-2025) examines artificial intelligence (AI) decision models for airway assessment, focusing on performance, limitations, and clinical translation. AI demonstrates significant statistical superiority: facial image analysis achieves 80%-90% sensitivity (vs. Mallampati's 39%), and deep learning models yield a pooled AUC of 0.84. Key techniques include convolutional neural networks, semi-supervised learning, and multimodal integration. Despite high predictive performance, widespread adoption faces fundamental barriers. Current studies are predominantly single-center and retrospective, lacking external validation, algorithmic fairness, standardized outcomes, and proven workflow integration. Furthermore, research heavily favors upper airway evaluation. Thoracic anesthesia, utilizing routine preoperative CTs, offers an immediate pathway for comprehensive whole-airway assessment. Ultimately, bridging the translational gap requires rigorous, prospective multicenter validation demonstrating tangible patient safety improvements, rather than relying solely on algorithmic sophistication.
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.