Monitoring of standard hemodynamic parameters: Heart rate, systemic blood pressure, atrial pressure, pulse oximetry, and end-tidal CO2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Continuous monitoring of various clinical parameters of hemodynamic and respiratory status in pediatric critical care medicine has become routine. The evidence supporting these practices is examined in this review. METHODOLOGY: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database was conducted to find controlled trials of heart rate, electrocardiography, noninvasive and invasive blood pressure, atrial pressure, end-tidal carbon dioxide, and pulse oximetry monitoring. Adult and pediatric data were considered. Guidelines published by the Society for Critical Care Medicine, the American Heart Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation were reviewed, including further review of references cited. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Use of heart rate, electrocardiography, noninvasive and arterial blood pressure, atrial pressure, pulse oximetry, and end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring in the pediatric critical care unit is commonplace; this practice, however, is not supported by well-controlled clinical trials. Despite the majority of literature being case series, expert opinion would suggest that use of routine pulse oximetry and end-tidal carbon dioxide is the current standard of care. In addition, literature would suggest that invasive arterial monitoring is the current standard for monitoring in the setting of shock. The use of heart rate, electrocardiography. and atrial pressure monitoring is advantageous in specific clinical scenarios (postoperative cardiac surgery); however, the evidence for this is based on numerous case series only.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".