MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2266969088 · doi:10.1161/str.44.suppl_1.atp342

Abstract TP342: Utilization of Minimally Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring Via Arterial Line Provides Accurate Data in Which to Treat Cerebral Vasospasm in the Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Population

2013· article· en· W2266969088 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa D Hawk, Kimberly O’Day

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsKimberly-Clark (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSubarachnoid hemorrhagePulmonary artery catheterAnesthesiaHemodynamicsVasospasmIntravascular volume statusPulmonary wedge pressureCerebral vasospasmCatheterCardiologyCardiac outputSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Purpose: In the subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) patient intravascular volume status is one of three important components in the treatment of cerebral vasospasm. Traditionally, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP) coupled with central venous pressure (CVP) were values obtained to help determine the intra-vascular volume status in these patients and were used to help guide the treatment of cerebral vasospasm. However, pulmonary artery (PA) catheter derived values are unreliable, and have poor sensitivity and specificity. The use of minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring via an arterial line has been shown to be more reliable than the PA catheter in determining the state of a patient’s fluid volume status. The goal is to demonstrate that minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring is a more reliable source of data and therefore a better guide for the treatment of cerebral vasospasm compared to the PA catheter. Methods: Our institution’s method of utilizing the minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring device to aide in determining a patient’s fluid volume status and consequently treating cerebral vasospasm is unconventional from its originally intended use. It was through trial, error, and extensive research that our institution implemented and developed a protocol, therefore eventually replacing the PA catheter. The desired data to be collected is stroke volume variation (SVV) and stroke volume index (SVI). This data is also coupled with CVP obtained via a central venous catheter (CVC). The protocol states that if two out of three of the SVV, SVI, or CVP values are out of desired range, then a fluid bolus should be given. These numbers are adjusted as needed to correlate with both the clinical and pulmonary status of the patient. Results: As a result of the initiation of this protocol, coupled with the other two pieces of “Triple H” therapy, there has seemingly been a less incidence of both vasospasm and pulmonary edema compared to the utilization of the PA catheter. Conclusions: In conclusion, given that there are no formal studies comparing minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring directly to the PA catheter in the same patient, formal studies need to be conducted in order to obtain data to confirm observations noted in our institution.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances→French-language works237,207→