MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Central venous pressure monitoring

2006· article· en· W1997705238 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Critical Care · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria HospitalMcGill University Health CentreRoyal Victoria Regional Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCentral venous pressureWaveformVenous pressureCardiac outputCardiologyCardiac tamponadeBlood pressureInternal medicineHeart rateComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The proper use of central venous pressure requires a good understanding of basic measurement techniques and features of the waveform. RECENT FINDINGS: If attention is not paid to proper leveling of the transducer and consideration of transmural pressure then major errors are made in the use of central venous pressure. Besides the information gained from the relationship of changes in central venous pressure to changes in cardiac output, there is also much information to be obtained by examining the waveforms of the central venous pressure tracing. Examples are given of rhythm disorders, tricuspid regurgitation, cardiac tamponade, cardiac restriction, and decreased thoracic compliance. SUMMARY: There is much more to the measurement of central venous pressure than the simple digital value on the monitor and the actual waveform should always be examined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.336 · 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