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 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 | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".