Validation Study of PulseCO System for Continuous Cardiac Output Measurement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ultrasonic flow probes have been used to optimize biventricular pacing immediately after cardiopulmonary bypass, improving cardiac output (CO) by 10%; however, flow probes must be removed with chest closure. The PulseCO system (LiDCO Limited, Cambridge, UK) may extend optimization into the postoperative period, but controlled validations have not been reported. Six anesthetized pigs were instrumented for right heart bypass. Flow was varied from 3 to 1 L/min and then back to 3 in 0.5 L/min increments for 60 second intervals. CO was measured by ultrasonic flow probe on the aorta and by PulseCO using a femoral arterial line. PulseCO and flow probe accurately measured CO (PulseCO R2: 0.79-0.95; flow probe R2: 0.96-0.99). At flow of 2 L/min, when the heart was paced 30 bpm over the sinus rate, PulseCO falsely indicated an increase in CO (2.13 vs. 2.30 L/min, p = 0.014). When mean arterial pressure was increased by 20% using a phenylephrine infusion, PulseCO falsely indicated an increase in CO (2.13 vs. 2.47 L/min, p = 0.014). When mean arterial pressure was decreased by 20% using a nitroprusside infusion, PulseCO falsely indicated a decrease in CO (2.13 vs. 1.79 L/min, p = 0.003). PulseCO appears to be useful for assessing acute changes in CO if its limitations are recognized.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 it