Baxter elastomeric pumps: Weighing as an alternative to visual inspection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".