Comparison of arterial pressure waveform analysis with the lithium dilution technique to monitor cardiac output in anesthetized dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess agreement between arterial pressure waveform-derived cardiac output (PCO) and lithium dilution cardiac output (LiDCO) systems in measurements of various levels of cardiac output (CO) induced by changes in anesthetic depth and administration of inotropic drugs in dogs. ANIMALS: 6 healthy dogs. PROCEDURE: Dogs were anesthetized on 2 occasions separated by at least 5 days. Inotropic drug administration (dopamine or dobutamine) was randomly assigned in a crossover manner. Following initial calibration of PCO measurements with a LiDCO measurement, 4 randomly assigned treatments were administered to vary CO; subsequently, concurrent pairs of PCO and LiDCO measurements were obtained. Treatments included a light plane of anesthesia, deep plane of anesthesia, continuous infusion of an inotropic drug (rate adjusted to achieve a mean arterial pressure of 65 to 80 mm Hg), and continuous infusion of an inotropic drug (7 microg/kg/min). RESULTS: Significant differences in PCO and LiDCO measurements were found during deep planes of anesthesia and with dopamine infusions but not during the light plane of anesthesia or with dobutamine infusions. The PCO system provided higher CO measurements than the LiDCO system during deep planes of anesthesia but lower CO measurements during dopamine infusions. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The PCO system tracked changes in CO in a similar direction as the LiDCO system. The PCO system provided better agreement with LiDCO measurements over time when hemodynamic conditions were similar to those during initial calibration. Recalibration of the PCO system is recommended when hemodynamic conditions or pressure waveforms are altered appreciably.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".