Cited by 32Airway Management and Intubation TechniquesRespiratory Support and MechanismsTracheal and airway disorders

Individualized Treatment Effects of Bougie versus Stylet for Tracheal Intubation in Critical Illness

Open access
Seitz, Kevin P., Spicer, Alexandra B., Casey, Jonathan D., Buell, Kevin G., Qian, Edward T., Graham Linck, Emma J., Driver, Brian E., Self, Wesley H. +16 more·2023·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

Rationale: A recent randomized trial found that using a bougie did not increase the incidence of successful intubation on first attempt in critically ill adults. The average effect of treatment in a trial population, however, may differ from effects for individuals. Objective: We hypothesized that application of a machine learning model to data from a clinical trial could estimate the effect of treatment (bougie vs. stylet) for individual patients based on their baseline characteristics (“individualized treatment effects”). Methods: This was a secondary analysis of the BOUGIE (Bougie or Stylet in Patients Undergoing Intubation Emergently) trial. A causal forest algorithm was used to model differences in outcome probabilities by randomized group assignment (bougie vs. stylet) for each patient in the first half of the trial (training cohort). This model was used to predict individualized treatment effects for each patient in the second half (validation cohort). Measurements and Main Results: Of 1,102 patients in the BOUGIE trial, 558 (50.6%) were the training cohort, and 544 (49.4%) were the validation cohort. In the validation cohort, individualized treatment effects predicted by the model significantly modified the effect of trial group assignment on the primary outcome (P value for interaction = 0.02; adjusted qini coefficient, 2.46). The most important model variables were difficult airway characteristics, body mass index, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score. Conclusions: In this hypothesis-generating secondary analysis of a randomized trial with no average treatment effect and no treatment effect in any prespecified subgroups, a causal forest machine learning algorithm identified patients who appeared to benefit from the use of a bougie over a stylet and from the use of a stylet over a bougie using complex interactions between baseline patient and operator characteristics.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1164/rccm.202209-1799oc

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AI might help researchers design and enrol tailored patient subgroups for precise RCTs.

    “Instead of using large, heterogeneous trial populations, AI might help researchers design and enrol tailored patient subgroups for precise RCTs [63, 64].”

    From Implementing Artificial Intelligence in Critical Care Medicine: a consensus of 22. (2025) · cites this paper as [64]

    The Discussion (page not provided) says the machine-learning method can distinguish patients likely to benefit from different treatments and may inform methods for future trials. It does not say researchers could use it to design trials or enroll tailored patient subgroups; this study analyzed patients already enrolled in a trial. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 11 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Spicer A, Semler MW, Casey JD, Driver B, Prekker ME, Wang L, et al. Individualized treatment effects of bougie vs stylet for tracheal intubation [abstract]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2022;205:A5784.
  2. Athey S, Wager S. Estimating treatment effects with causal forests: an application [preprint]. arXiv; 2019 [accessed 2022 Jul 29]. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.07409. · arXiv
  3. Radcliffe N. Using control groups to target on predicted lift: building and assessing uplift model. Direct Market J Direct Market Assoc Anal Council 2007;1:14-21.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Seitz, K. P., Spicer, A. B., Casey, J. D., Buell, K. G., Qian, E. T., Graham Linck, E. J., Driver, B. E., Self, W. H., Ginde, A. A., Trent, S. A., Gandotra, S., Smith, L. M., Page, D. B., Vonderhaar, D. J., West, J. R., Joffe, A. M., Doerschug, K. C., Hughes, C. G., Whitson, M. R., Prekker, M. E., Rice, T. W., Sinha, P., Semler, M. W., & Churpek, M. M.
Affiliations
  • Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, and
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
  • Department of Emergency Medicine and
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • Denver Health Medical Center (US)
  • Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, and
  • Atrium Health Pulmonary Critical Care Medicine, Charlotte, North Carolina
  • University of Alabama (US)
  • Louisiana State University (US)
  • Lincoln Medical Center (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • Hennepin County Medical Center (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2023-06
Volume
207
Issue
12
Pages
1602-1611
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W4323294178
Cited by
32
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 4
FWCI
10.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • NIH (T32HL087738, K23HL153584, UL1 RR024975)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K23HL143053, R01HL157262)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Airway Management and Intubation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Tracheal and airway disorders
Keywords
bougie, stylet, endotracheal intubation, individual treatment effects, causal forest, difficult airway, critical illness, first-attempt intubation success, body mass index, APACHE II score
MeSH terms
Adult, Calibration, Humans, Intubation, Intratracheal, Laryngoscopy, Critical Illness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review