Technique for Measuring Limb Occlusion Pressure that Facilitates Personalized Tourniquet Systems: A Randomized Trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed a technique for measuring patient limb occlusion pressure (LOP) through a tourniquet cuff that overcomes many limitations of existing LOP measurement techniques. The purpose of the study is to determine whether the LOP measured by the proposed technique is statistically or clinically different from that measured by the gold standard Doppler ultrasound technique. The study used randomized crossover multicenter trials. 143 pre- and post-surgical patients with a mean age of 54 years (range 17-86 years) were enrolled in the study. Pneumatic cuffs were applied to the non-operative upper and lower limbs and LOP was measured using the proposed technique and the Doppler ultrasound technique. From a total of 252 usable measurements for each technique (134 for upper limbs and 118 for lower limbs), the mean difference in LOP between the two techniques was 1 ± 8 mmHg for the upper limbs, 0 ± 15 mmHg for the lower limbs, and 1 ± 12 mmHg overall. The differences between the proposed technique and the Doppler technique were neither statistically nor clinically significant. The simplicity, effectiveness, and accuracy of the proposed technique should lead to broader clinical usage and acceptance of LOP measurement, thus leading to safer, personalized pressures in surgical tourniquet applications.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it