Calculating Ideal Body Weight: Keep It Simple
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We read with much interest the editorial on protective ventilation by Hedenstierna and Edmark in the December issue of Anesthesiology.1 We agree with most of the ideas put forward. However, as thoracic anesthesiologists, we strongly believe in the importance, during one-lung ventilation, of low tidal volume based on ideal body weight.2,3Many authors still recommend using the gender-specific Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network (ARDSnet) formulas to calculate ideal body weight.4 Ideal body weight is computed in men as 50 + (0.91 × [height in centimeters − 152.4]) and in women as 45.5 + (0.91 × [height in centimeters − 152.4]). A simple alternative would be to compute ideal body weight as the weight corresponding to an ideal body mass index of 22 kg/m2. Ideal body weight is then simply calculated as 22 × ([the actual patient’s height in meters]^2) or by using body mass index charts available on our anesthesia cart.5 We chose 22 kg/m2 as the ideal body mass index after comparing the ideal body weight corresponding to body mass indices ranging from 20 to 25 to ideal body weight calculated from ADRSnet formulas. For example, a 1.75-m man would have an ideal body weight of 67 kg (22 × [1.75^2]) compared to 71 kg if using ARDSnet; a 1.60-m woman would have an ideal body weight of 56 kg (22 × [1.60^2]) compared to 52 kg if using ARDSnet.The method we propose is simple and easy to remember. The same computation applies for both men and women and involves simple arithmetic.The authors declare no competing interests.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".