MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130309995 · doi:10.1177/108925320400800107

Intraoperative Echocardiography: Support for Decision Making in Cardiac Surgery

2004· article· en· W2130309995 on OpenAlexaff
Iván Iglesias, Daniel Bainbridge, John Murkin

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiac surgeryClinical decision makingCardiologyGeneral surgeryIntensive care medicineInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intraoperative echocardiography (including transesophageal echocardiography, epiaortic ultrasound and epicardial echocardiography) is commonly performed in North American hospitals during cardiac anesthesia. Several authors have reported on the positive impact of intraoperative echocardiography on patients' outcomes. Transesophageal echocardiography is useful in identifying anatomic and functional abnormalities either before or after cardiopulmonary bypass and helps to make decisions in the care of high-risk and unstable patients. In minimally invasive and robotically assisted surgery, transesophageal echocardiography is essential in order to guide cannulation of venous and arterial vessels for cardiopulmonary bypass and in providing immediate assessment of the quality of the performed repair. Intraoperative echocardiography can also detect complications associated with the performed procedure and can be an excellent hemodynamic monitor in unstable patients. In this paper different scenarios where intraoperative echocardiography is useful are reviewed, some clinical cases are shown to illustrate, and a review of related literature is reported.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular AnesthesiaSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207