MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pulmonary artery occlusion pressure estimation: How confident are anesthesiologists?*

2002· article· en· W1969800300 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael J. Jacka, Marsha M. Cohen, Teresa To, J. Hugh Devitt, Robert J. Byrick

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsToronto Public HealthUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary artery catheterPulmonary arteryOcclusionAnesthesiaPulmonary embolismCardiologyInternal medicineBlood pressureSurgeryCardiac output

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The pulmonary artery catheter is a controversial device, and randomized evaluation of its effectiveness has been demanded. Accurate estimation of pulmonary artery occlusion pressure is important for optimal use of the pulmonary artery catheter. Anesthesiologists use the pulmonary artery catheter frequently but have not been surveyed about confidence in pulmonary artery occlusion pressure estimation. Our objective was to determine the ability of practicing cardiovascular anesthesiologists to estimate pulmonary artery occlusion pressure accurately and measure their confidence in this estimate. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: All academic and community hospitals in English-speaking Eastern Canada and selected centers in Western Canada and the United States. PATIENTS: Cardiovascular anesthesiologists. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured agreement with expert-defined timing of pulmonary artery occlusion pressure estimation, estimation of a sample pulmonary artery occlusion pressure trace, and management of a hypothetical clinical complication (air embolism). Seventy-seven percent of 345 anesthesiologists responded. Agreement about the optimal timing of pulmonary artery occlusion pressure estimation (89%) and the management of air embolism (85%) was near expectations (expected 90%). However, the pulmonary artery occlusion pressure waveform was interpreted accurately by only 61%, whereas 28% disagreed and 11% were uncertain. Significant positive associations (p =.016) between continuing medical education items and accurate interpretation were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Estimation of a sample pulmonary artery occlusion pressure trace by practicing anesthesiologists was in only modest agreement with expert assessment and published standards. Anesthesiologists demonstrated substantially less confidence in pulmonary artery occlusion pressure estimation than in the optimal timing of pulmonary artery occlusion pressure estimation. Before the effectiveness of the pulmonary artery catheter in clinical care can be systematically assessed, efforts are needed to enhance accuracy and consistency of pulmonary artery occlusion pressure estimation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207