An Evaluation of the NICCI Monitor in Providing Continuous, Noninvasive Blood Pressure Readings in Children During Intraoperative Anesthetic Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In specific clinical scenarios or with patient comorbid conditions, continuous blood pressure (BP) monitoring may be required as it can be expected to provide superior physiologic monitoring to intermittent techniques. However, continuous BP monitoring requires an arterial cannula (AC) placement, which may be time-consuming, technically challenging, or associated with adverse events. Various noninvasive BP devices have been developed which provide a continuous BP reading. The current study evaluates the accuracy of a novel continuous BP device, the NICCI monitor (NM), in pediatric patients weighing 10 - 40 kg. Methods: The study cohort included pediatric patients weighing between 10 and 40 kg, scheduled for surgery for which placement of an AC was planned. Systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP), and mean arterial (MAP) blood pressure readings were captured from the AC and the NM every second during anesthetic care. Results: The study cohort included 24 pediatric patients undergoing major orthopedic, cardiac, and neurosurgical procedures. A total of 146,562 pairs of SBP, DBP, and MAP values from the AC and NC were analyzed. The absolute difference for the NM and the AC's SBP, DBP, and MAP values were 11 ± 9, 10 ± 7, and 10 ± 7 mm Hg, respectively. The difference between the BP values from the NM and the AC was ≤ 10 mm Hg for 57% of the SBP readings, 60% of the DBP readings, and 56% of the MAP readings. The bias was 4, 4, and 6 mm Hg for the SBP, DBP, and MAP, respectively. Conclusions: Although there were some technical limitations given patient size, potentially resulting in variation in accuracy, the NM provided a continuous noninvasive BP measurement within clinically useful limits during a significant portion of anesthetic care compared to values obtained from an AC. Ongoing modification of the technology to improve its application in pediatric patients will likely increase its accuracy.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".