MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058688770 · doi:10.1186/cc5456

Comparison between uncalibrated cardiac output using the femoral and radial arterial pressure waveform in critically ill patients

2007· article· en· W2058688770 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jenna Smith, C. B. Wolff, Edward S. Mills, K Lei, Clare Taylor, Luigi Camporota, Rupert Beale

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCritically illMedicineBlood pressureWaveformCardiac outputCardiologyMean arterial pressureArterial lineContinuous noninvasive arterial pressureRadial arteryInternal medicineArterial bloodHeart rateArteryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac output (CO) monitoring is often required to manage critically ill patients. Nominal values can be determined from analysis of arterial pressure waveforms. It is assumed that arterial waveforms from different arterial sites give similar CO values. The aim of this study was to compare the values of uncalibrated CO derived from simultaneous radial (COr) and femoral (COf) blood pressures.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207