MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012961516 · doi:10.1097/mcc.0b013e32834272c1

Hemodynamic monitoring in the mechanically ventilated patient

2010· review· en· W2012961516 on OpenAlexaff
Sheldon Magder

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Critical Care · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemodynamicsOxygenationOxygen deliveryMechanical ventilationIntensive care medicineCardiac outputPulmonary arteryRespiratory physiologyCardiac function curveCardiologyAnesthesiaRespiratory systemInternal medicineHeart failureOxygen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Interactions between the heart and lungs are magnified in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation and the consequences of these interactions always need to be considered when managing ventilated patients. In patients with normal lungs and normal cardiovascular function monitoring needs are minimal, but when oxygenation and cardiac function are compromised careful assessment of the consequences of changes in ventilator settings needs to be considered to ensure that adequate oxygen delivery is maintained. RECENT FINDINGS: Primary determinants of heart-lung interactions are first reviewed and then approaches to the use of simple hemodynamic measurements such as respiratory variations in central venous and pulmonary artery occlusion, or arterial pressure are described for assessing oxygen delivery, volume responsiveness as well as indicators of ventilatory mechanics. SUMMARY: Use of simple measurements available during routine monitoring can be very helpful to the informed clinician for optimizing hemodynamic performance as well as patient ventilator interactions.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Critical CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207