The effect of pilot balloon design on estimation of safe tracheal tube cuff pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the effect of pilot balloon design on the ability of experienced anaesthetists to assess and inflate tracheal tube cuffs to safe pressures. A model trachea was designed, incorporating a degree of compliance and an air leak, to evaluate six different pilot balloons grafted onto identical tracheal tubes. Pilot balloons were inflated to one of four pressures and anaesthetists were asked to estimate whether the pressure was acceptable, too low or too high. Anaesthetists were then asked to inflate the cuff of each tube. Overall, 103 (42.9%) of anaesthetists' assessments of tracheal tube cuff pressures were correct (33% correct would be expected by chance, p = 0.002). Pressures generated by anaesthetists inflating tracheal tube cuffs were very variable. Median (IQR [range]) pressures for each pilot balloon ranged from 29 (17-43 [9-56]) cmH(2)O to 74 (49-114 [4-140]) cmH(2)O (p < 0.001). The design of the pilot balloon significantly affects anaesthetists' ability to inflate tracheal tube cuffs to safe pressures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".