A user’s guide to intra-abdominal pressure measurement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) measurement is a key to diagnosing and managing critically ill medical and surgical patients. There are an increasing number of techniques that allow us to measure the IAP at the bedside. This paper reviews these techniques. IAP should be measured at end-expiration, with the patient in the supine position and ensuring that there is no abdominal muscle activity. The intravesicular IAP measurement is convenient and considered the gold standard. The level where the mid-axillary line crosses the iliac crest is the recommended zero reference for the transvesicular IAP measurement; moreover, marking this level on the patient increases reproducibility. Protocols for IAP measurement should be developed for each ICU based on the locally available tools and equipment. IAP measurement techniques are safe, reproducible and accurate and do not increase the risk of urinary tract infection. Continuous IAP measurement may offer benefits in specific situations in the future. In conclusion, the IAP measurement is a reliable and essential adjunct to the management of patients at risk of intra-abdominal hypertension.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.144 | 0.144 |
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".