Noninvasive Blood Pressure Measurement Using the NICCI Monitor in Adolescents During Intraoperative Anesthetic Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The intermittent measurement of blood pressure (BP) remains the standard of care during anesthesia or procedural sedation. To improve the early identification of hemodynamic compromise, 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 system, in adolescents weighing 40 - 80 kg. Methods: During intraoperative anesthetic care, BP readings (systolic, diastolic, and mean) were captured from the arterial cannula and the NICCI device every second. Results: The study cohort included 44 pediatric patients undergoing major orthopedic, cardiac, and neurosurgical procedures. A total of 383,126 pairs of systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) values from the arterial cannula and the NICCI device were analyzed. The absolute difference for SBP, DBP, and MAP values from the NICCI monitor and the arterial cannula were 10 ± 8, 9 ± 7, and 9 ± 7 mm Hg, respectively. The difference between the BP values from the NICCI and the arterial cannula was ≤ 10 mm Hg for 60% of the SBP readings, 67% of the DBP readings, and 56% of the MAP readings. Using Bland-Altman analysis, the bias was 2, 3, and 4 mm Hg for the SBP, DBP, and MAP. Conclusions: Although there were technical limitations related to patient size that affected its ability to meet the strict accuracy criteria set by the American National Standards Institute/Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation standards for noninvasive BP measurement (ANSI/AAMI SP10), the NICCI system provided a continuous noninvasive beat-to-beat BP measurement which was clinically relevant during a significant portion of intraoperative care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".