MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976276952 · doi:10.2174/157340312801784952

Point of Care Cardiac Ultrasound Applications in the Emergency Department and Intensive Care Unit - A Review

2012· review· en· W1976276952 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Arntfield, Scott J. Millington

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Cardiology Reviews · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentIntensive care unitCardiac UltrasoundPoint of care ultrasoundIntensive care medicinePoint of careMedical emergencyChest painIntensive careEmergency medicineCardiologyRadiologyUltrasoundNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of point of care echocardiography by non-cardiologist in acute care settings such as the emergency department (ED) or the intensive care unit (ICU) is very common. Unlike diagnostic echocardiography, the scope of such point of care exams is often restricted to address the clinical questions raised by the patient’s differential diagnosis or chief complaint in order to inform immediate management decisions. In this article, an overview of the most common applications of this focused echocardiography in the ED and ICU is provided. This includes but is not limited to the evaluation of patients experiencing hypotension, cardiac arrest, cardiac trauma, chest pain and patients after cardiac surgery. Keywords: Echocardiography, emergency department, ICU, point of care, ultrasound, Non-cardiologist, HYPOTENSIVE PATIENT, emergency department, TEE, CCPs

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations165
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Cardiology ReviewsSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207