MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determination of cardiac output in neonatal foals by ultrasound velocity dilution and its comparison to the lithium dilution method

2009· article· en· W2033558808 on OpenAlexaff
Andre Shih, Steeve Giguère, L. Chris Sanchez, Alexander Valverde, Carsten Bandt, Hope Jankunas, Sheilah A. Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFoalDilutionCardiac outputAnesthesiaLimits of agreementConcordanceConcordance correlation coefficientHeart rateCoefficient of variationBlood pressureCardiologyInternal medicineNuclear medicineHemodynamicsChromatographyStatisticsChemistryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare cardiac output (CO) measured by use of lithium dilution (LiDCO) and ultrasound velocity dilution (UDCO) in conditions of high, intermediate, and low CO in anesthetized foals. DESIGN: Original prospective study. SETTING: University teaching hospital. ANIMALS: Six foals 1-3 days of age (38-45 kg). INTERVENTIONS: Neonatal foals were anesthetized and instrumented to measure direct blood pressure, heart rate, arterial blood gases, and CO. The CO was measured by use of LiDCO and UDCO techniques. Measurements were obtained from each foal at baseline and during low, intermediate, and high CO states. Measurements were converted to cardiac index (cardiac index=CO/body weight) values for statistical analysis. Agreement between the 2 methods was determined using Bland and Altman analysis and concordance correlation coefficients. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: LiDCO determinations of CO ranged between 4.0 and 14.0 L/min resulting in cardiac index ranging between 75.5 and 310 mL/kg/min. There was no significant effect of blood pressure variation on bias or relative bias (P=0.62 and 0.93, respectively). The mean bias and relative bias of UDCO (+/-SD) compared with LiDCO were -20.1+/-39.2 mL/kg/min and -7.7+/-23.4%, respectively. Concordance correlation coefficient between LiDCO and UDCO was 0.833. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with LiDCO, the UDCO technique has acceptable clinical utility for measuring CO in healthy 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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.351 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations28
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical CareSame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207