Effect of airway pressure display on interobserver agreement in the assessment of vascular pressures in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous investigations have identified significant interobserver variability in the measurements of central venous pressure and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure in critically ill patients. Large interobserver variability in the measurement of vascular pressures could potentially lead to inappropriate treatment decisions. OBJECTIVE: We postulated that adding an airway pressure signal (Paw) to pressure tracings of central venous pressure and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure would improve interobserver agreement by facilitating identification of end-expiration. DESIGN: To test this hypothesis, six independent experts used a standard protocol to interpret strip-chart recordings of central venous pressure and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure with or without Paw. Two observers were said to agree if their measurements were within 2 mm Hg of each other. SETTING/SUBJECTS/INTERVENTIONS: A total of 459 strip-chart recordings (303 without Paw and 156 with Paw) were obtained from 121 patients enrolled in the ARDSnet Fluids and Catheters Treatment Trial (FACTT) in 16 different hospitals. RESULTS: Agreement within 2 mm Hg between two measurements was 79% for central venous pressure strips without Paw vs. 86% with Paw. For pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, agreement increased from 71% without Paw to 83% with Paw. The increase in agreement with the addition of Paw was greater for strips demonstrating >8 mm Hg phasic respiratory variation compared with strips demonstrating less phasic respiratory variation. CONCLUSION: Paw display is a simple, inexpensive method to facilitate the identification of end-expiration that can significantly improve interobserver agreement.
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 | 0.033 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".