Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparative analysis of popular predictors for difficult laryngoscopy using hybrid intelligent detection methods.
Liu, Xiaoxiao; Flanagan, Colin; Fang, Jingchao; Lei, Yiming; McGrath, Launcelot; Wang, Jun; Guo, Xiangyang; Guo, Jiangzhen; McGrath, Harry; Han, Yongzheng.
Affiliation
  • Liu X; Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
  • Flanagan C; Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
  • Fang J; Department of Radiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
  • Lei Y; Research Centre of Digital Hospital Systems, Peking University, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China.
  • McGrath L; Northern Hospital Melbourne, Australia.
  • Wang J; Department of Anaesthesiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
  • Guo X; Department of Anaesthesiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
  • Guo J; School of Engineering Medicine, Beihang University, Beijing, China.
  • McGrath H; Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
  • Han Y; Department of Anaesthesiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Heliyon ; 8(11): e11761, 2022 Nov.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36451753
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.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Language: En Journal: Heliyon Year: 2022 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Ireland

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Language: En Journal: Heliyon Year: 2022 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Ireland