The Feasibility of Measuring Renal Blood Flow Using Transesophageal Echocardiography in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no reliable method to monitor renal blood flow intraoperatively. In this study, we evaluated the feasibility and reproducibility of left renal blood flow measurements using transesophageal echocardiography during cardiac surgery. METHODS: In this prospective noninterventional study, left renal blood flow was measured with transesophageal echocardiography during three time points (pre-, intra-, and postcardiopulmonary bypass) in 60 patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Sonograms from 6 subjects were interpreted by 2 blinded independent assessors at the time of acquisition and 6 mo later. Interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility were quantified by calculating variability and intraclass correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Patients with Doppler angles of >30 degrees (20 of 60 subjects) were eliminated from renal blood flow measurements. Left renal blood flow was successfully measured and analyzed in 36 of 60 (60%) subjects. Both interobserver and intraobserver variability were <10%. Interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility in left renal blood flow measurements were good to excellent (intraclass correlation coefficients 0.604-0.999). Left renal arterial luminal diameter for the pre, intra, and postcardiopulmonary bypass phases, ranged from 3.8 to 4.1 mm, renal arterial velocity from 25 to 35 cm/s, and left renal blood flow from 192 to 299 mL/min. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, it was feasible in 60% of the subjects to measure left renal blood flow using intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography. The interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility of renal blood flow measurements was good to excellent.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it