Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Echocardiography has become more widely available to noncardiologists because of the technological advances in smaller, multipurpose ultrasound units with basic cardiac capabilities. In this review, we discuss the type of clinical information a trained intensivist can hope to obtain from bedside echocardiography and suggest the ways in which this complements traditional hemodynamic monitoring. RECENT FINDINGS: Following a 10-h hands-on course, intensivists are able to perform and interpret a goal-oriented echocardiogram in approximately 10 min with good accuracy. Bedside echocardiography can aid in determining fluid status and qualitative cardiac ejection fraction, which can then be used immediately to guide therapy. SUMMARY: Intensivists can safely and accurately perform goal-oriented echocardiography. Although not yet proven to influence clinical outcome, we suggest that the major utility of echocardiography is for those with distributive or mixed shock in whom target central venous pressure has been achieved without evidence of adequate tissue perfusion. In this subset of patients, echocardiography can aid in selecting those most likely to benefit from further fluid or inotropic support.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".