Pulmonary artery occlusion pressure estimation: How confident are anesthesiologists?*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.024 | 0.185 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".