MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2577366119 · doi:10.1177/1078155216687153

Baxter elastomeric pumps: Weighing as an alternative to visual inspection

2017· article· en· W2577366119 on OpenAlexaff
Ellen Cusano, Raafi Ali, Michael B. Sawyer, Carole Chambers, Patricia A. Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeutropenia and Cancer Infections
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInfusion pumpPreferenceDosingSurgeryAnesthesiaStatisticsMathematicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Elastomeric pumps are used to administer 46-hour infusions of 5-fluorouracil (5FU). Baxter suggests patients visually monitor their pumps to ensure that infusions are proceeding correctly. This can be confusing and lead to concerns about under- or over-dosing. Baxter has not considered weighing pumps as a validated method for monitoring. This study aims to validate weighing as a more accurate method for patients and healthcare professionals, and describe real life Baxter Infusor™ variability. Methods Patients who had been started on a 46-hour 5FU infusion returned to the clinic approximately 24 h after starting treatment. The pump was weighed on a StarFrit kitchen scale, and date, time, and weights recorded. Patients were asked if they had a preference for weighing or visually inspecting their pump. Results Pumps ( n = 103) were weighed between 17.25 and 27.5 h after connection. The average weight of a pump was 189 g. Of 103 pumps weighed, 99 weighed less than expected, corresponding to average flow rates of 5.69 mL/h over the elapsed time. The expected flow rate is 5 mL/h with 10% variability. Average flow rates within the 17.25- to 27.5-hour window were 4.561 mL/h, which is 8.78% slower than expected, but within the 10% known variability. Forty-seven percent of patients didn't have a preference for either method, but for those who did have a preference, more than twice as many preferred weighing. Conclusion With proper education, weighing Baxter Infusors at home with kitchen scales can be an accepted and objective alternative to the current recommendation of visual inspection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.451 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oncology Pharmacy PracticeSame topicNeutropenia and Cancer InfectionsFrench-language works237,207