MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Use of and Preferences for the Transesophageal Echocardiogram and Pulmonary Artery Catheter Among Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists

2002· article· en· W2091063364 on OpenAlex
Michael J. Jacka, Marsha M. Cohen, Teresa To, J. Hugh Devitt, Robert J. Byrick

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of AlbertaSickKids FoundationSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary artery catheterTransesophageal echocardiogramCatheterCardiologyPulmonary arteryInternal medicineIntensive care medicineSurgeryHemodynamicsCardiac output

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: The pulmonary artery catheter (PAC), although widely used in anesthesia for cardiac and vascular surgery, remains controversial. Use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) by cardiovascular anesthesiologists may be a substitute or a preference compared with the PAC, but this has been incompletely investigated. An anonymous, cross-sectional survey was mailed to anesthesiologists in Canada and the United States. Anesthesiologists described their use of the PAC and TEE during cardiac and vascular surgery, along with their demographic characteristics. Two hundred sixty-five (77%) of 345 anesthesiologists responded. All had the PAC available for use, and 56% had TEE available. Only 23 (11% overall) reported having undergone echocardiography training, half of whom had completed fellowships. Both the PAC and TEE were more often used in cardiac valvular surgery (P = 0.0001) than in aortocoronary bypass or abdominal vascular surgery. Among all anesthesiologists, the PAC remained the preferred monitor in either cardiac or vascular surgery (P = 0.0001), although many indicated a preference for neither monitor. Among anesthesiologists with echocardiography training, TEE was preferred (P = 0.0004). We found that TEE was accessible to more than half of the surveyed anesthesiologists in cardiovascular surgery, but relatively few of them had completed formal training in its use. Only those with completed formal TEE training indicated a significant preference for TEE use and also used it frequently. Given the continuing controversy about the appropriate application of the PAC, concern about the appropriate application of TEE is prudent. The PAC remains the more frequently used and preferred monitor among cardiovascular anesthesiologists. IMPLICATIONS: A survey of anesthesiologists found that pulmonary artery catheter monitoring is currently more frequently used compared with transesophageal echocardiography during cardiac and vascular surgery.

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 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 score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.197 · 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