MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002230611 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e3182772ab6

The Role of Venous Return in Critical Illness and Shock—Part I

2012· article· en· W2002230611 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

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineShock (circulatory)Intensive care medicineVenous return curveDiseaseCritical illnessCardiovascular physiologyResuscitationCardiac outputCirculatory systemHemodynamicsCritically illCardiologyInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To provide a conceptual and clinical review of the physiology of the venous system as it is relates to cardiac function in health and disease. DATA: An integration of venous and cardiac physiology under normal conditions, critical illness, and resuscitation. SUMMARY: The usual teaching of cardiac physiology focuses on left ventricular function. As a result of the wide array of shock states with which intensivists contend, an approach that takes into account the function of the venous system and its interaction with the right and left heart may be more useful. This two-part review focuses on the function of the venous system and right heart under normal and stressed conditions. The first part describes the basic physiology of the venous system, and part two focuses on the role of the venous system in different pathophysiologic states, particularly shock. CONCLUSION: An improved understanding of the role of the venous system in health and disease will allow intensivists to better appreciate the complex circulatory physiology of shock and may allow for better hemodynamic management of this disorder.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.328 · 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