The Cuff Leak Test: A New Appraisal of an Old Technique. Who Benefits?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cuff leak tests have been performed on countless intubated patients for decades. Despite this widespread prior use, the test remains controversial. The controversies surrounding a cuff leak test focus mainly on the following areas: who exactly should be tested, how to best perform the test, and what to do with the result? The study by Kallet and Lipnick1 in this issue of Respiratory Care provides important insights into these questions. The original cuff leak test was developed by pediatric intensivists to determine when to extubate children with croup during a 3-month croup epidemic in Ontario, Canada.2 The researchers concluded that the children could be safely extubated if they had decreased secretions and an “audible air leak” with either coughing or with “a positive pressure insufflation of <40 cm H2O.”2 Since then, multiple studies have addressed the question of whether the test is useful in the adult patient population and whether this test can be standardized and … Correspondence: Ulrich Schmidt MD PhD MBA, University of California San Diego, Department of Anesthesia, 9434 Medical Center Dr, La Jolla, CA 92037. E-mail: uschmidt{at}health.ucsd.edu
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".