Comparison of the LoTrach and the Portex Soft Seal cuff: tracheal wall pressure and fluid leakage in a benchtop study and a clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the study is to demonstrate two methods of measuring tracheal wall pressure ( in vitro and in patients), with the LoTrach (LVLP) cuff and with conventional high-volume low-pressure (HVLP) cuffs. The LoTrach (VTSL, Singapore) is a new tracheal tube designed for use for mechanical ventilation in the critically ill. The LoTrach has been shown to prevent the ubiquitous problem of micro-aspiration of secretions associated with conventional HVLP cuffs [ 1 ]. Aspiration prevention is achieved by the properties of the LoTrach's low-volume low-pressure (LVLP) cuff, and these have been previously described [ 1 , 2 ]. It is important that, alongside achieving aspiration prevention, there is also tracheal wall pressure control. The LoTrach LVLP cuff is calibrated such that the sum of the elastic forces within the cuff remain constant throughout the inflation profile. Thus, at the working intra-cuff pressure of 80 cmH 2 O, only a consistent and acceptable 30 cmH 2 O is transmitted to the tracheal wall [ 2 ].
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".