Pulse contour‐derived cardiac output in hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliable methods for cardiac output determination are essential for studying the pathophysiology of intradialytic hypotension. Use of the current gold standard, the Transonic monitor, requires an arteriovenous fistula. We wished to verify the accuracy of a method based on finger pulse contour analysis, namely the Finometer monitor (FNM) for further use on patients dialyzing on a central vascular catheter. Fifty simultaneous cardiac output measurements were obtained during hemodialysis sessions in 25 patients. The internal variability of the FNM measurements was assessed by comparing 24 pairs of immediately successive measurements. The variability of successive FNM measurements was small (bias 0.28%, SD +/- 6.1%; NS). The absolute cardiac output values reported by the FNM were unreliable (bias 20.1%, SD +/- 35.3%; P<0.001) as were the relative intradialytic changes (r(2)=0.01). Excluding participants from the analysis due to old age, high dialysis vintage or a suspicion of atherosclerosis did not improve the results. Our findings do not support the use of pulse contour analysis for measuring cardiac output in hemodialysis patients. Uremic vascular disease may be the cause of the observed inaccuracy.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".