Determination of cardiac output in anesthetized neonatal foals by use of two pulse wave analysis methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare cardiac output (CO) measured by lithium arterial pressure waveform analysis (PULSECO) and CO measured by transpulmonary pulse contour analysis (PICCO) in anesthetized foals, with CO measured by use of lithium dilution (LIDCO) considered the criterion-referenced standard. SAMPLE POPULATION: 6 neonatal (1- to 4-day-old) foals that weighed 38 to 45 kg. Procedures-Foals were anesthetized and instrumented to measure direct blood pressure, heart rate, arterial blood gases, and CO. The CO was measured by use of PULSECO, PICCO, and LIDCO techniques. Measurements were converted to specific CO (sCO) values for statistical analysis. Measurements were obtained during low, intermediate, and high CO states. RESULTS: sCO ranged from 75.5 to 310 mL/kg/min. Mean +/- SD PICCO bias varied significantly among CO states and was -51.9 +/- 23.1 mL/kg/min, 20.0 +/- 19.5 mL/kg/min, and 87.2 +/- 19.5 mL/kg/min at low, intermediate, and high CO states, respectively. Mean PULSECO bias (11.0 +/- 37.5 mL/kg/min) was significantly lower than that of PICCO and did not vary among CO states. Concordance correlation coefficient between LIDCO and PULSECO was significantly greater than that between LIDCO and PICCO. The proportion of observations with a relative bias < +/- 30% was significantly lower with the PULSECO method than with the PICCO method. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Values for the PULSECO method were more reproducible and agreed better with values for the LIDCO method than did values for the PICCO method and were able to more accurately monitor changes in CO in anesthetized newborn foals.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".