Comparison of intermittent and continuous intra-abdominal pressure monitoring using an in vitro model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) is increasingly being considered as an important physiologic parameter to be measured in critically ill patients. Traditional methods of monitoring IAP rely on intermittent IAP (IIAP) measurements using indwelling bladder catheters. Recently, a method of continuous IAP (CIAP) monitoring has been developed using a three-way bladder catheter. This study evaluates the reliability of IIAP and CIAP measurement techniques using an in vitro model. METHODS: An in vitro model of the abdomen was constructed using a 50 l container with a 100 ml infusion bag at the base to simulate a bladder. A three-way catheter tip was centered within the infusion bag filled with 50 ml saline. To simulate IAP the container was filled with water at 5 cm H(2)O increments from 10 to 25 cm H(2)O. Pressures were recorded by observers from a bedside monitor interfaced with a three-way Foley catheter using alternating intermittent and continuous techniques. Each subject was blinded to the known pressure values. Descriptive statistics and a generalised estimating equation (GEE) was used to describe the relationship of IIAP and CIAP to known pressures. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-two (132) observations were made by 20 subjects for both IIAP and CIAP estimates. In 45.5% of IIAP measures, the estimate was correct, and it was never more than 1 cm H(2)O different from the actual. Similarly, in 38.6% of CIAP measures, the estimate was correct, and was never more than 2 cm H(2)O from the actual. The GEE regression coefficients comparing known pressures with IIAP and CIAP were 1.007 and 0.976 respectively. The minimum and maximum pressure deviations never exceeded more than 1.3 cm H(2)O from the actual. CONCLUSION: Intermittent IAP and CIAP are both reliable and reproducible methods to measure IAP in an in vitro model. There exists a direct and significant association between both measurements and the actual value. Neither measure was shown to be superior.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".