The accuracy of transoesophageal echocardiography in estimating pulmonary capillary wedge pressure in anaesthetised patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to identify whether pulmonary capillary wedge pressure can be estimated in anaesthetised patients receiving mechanical ventilation, using transoesophageal echocardiography. A retrospective validation study investigated a 10-patient cohort with variable haemodynamic conditions, and a 102-patient series in which a single measurement was made during stable haemodynamic conditions. Concurrent echocardiographic Doppler and pulmonary artery catheter wedge pressure measurements were performed. In the 10-patient cohort, the systolic fraction of Doppler measurements in the pulmonary vein (r = -0.32, p = 0.035) and the E/A ratio (r = 0.56, p = 0.0009) were correlated with the wedge pressure. In all cases, the limits of agreement exceeded 10 mmHg, and sensitivity or specificity for detecting wedge pressure ≥ 15 mmHg was poor. This study demonstrates proof of concept that using transoesophageal echocardiography for estimating the pulmonary artery wedge pressure may not be sufficiently accurate for clinical use.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".