A Simple Doppler Echocardiography Method to Evaluate Pulmonary Capillary Wedge Pressure in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation
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
OBJECTIVE: The accuracy of E/E' ratio has not been validated in atrial fibrillation (AF). The objective of this study is to compare the accuracy of the E/E' ratio averaged over a sample of 10 cardiac cycles and E/E' ratio obtained in the cycle with the longest RR interval for the estimation of wedge pressure in patients with AF using a simultaneous pulmonary artery occlusive pressure measured with a Swan-Ganz catheter. DESIGN: Twenty-four consecutive patients with AF with a Swan-Ganz catheter were recruited in this study. The majority of patients (92%) were in the early postoperative phase of cardiac surgery. RESULTS: The best sensitivity and specificity was reached with E/E' ratio in the medial position using the one-beat method; E/E' ratio > or = 16 with one beat predicts a wedge pressure >15 mmHg with a sensitivity and specificity of 91% and 85%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring E/E' ratio using the one-beat method is a simple and clinically accurate way to estimate wedge pressure in patients with AF.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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