MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2895845667 · doi:10.1139/cjpp-2018-0458

Merits and perils of targeted neonatal echocardiography-based hemodynamic research: a position statement

2018· review· en· W2895845667 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ashraf Kharrat, Patrick J. McNamara, Dany E. Weisz, Amish Jain

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineNeonatologyIntensive careAdjudicationPosition statementStandardizationHemodynamicsMedical physicsCardiologyFamily medicineLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the neonatal setting, point-of-care ultrasound is increasingly being used to help clinicians with the evaluation of heart function. Practices in neonatology, particularly with regard to acute and chronic hemodynamic managements, were traditionally more driven on dogma and predefined thresholds and not always supported by demonstrable physiology. For the first time, targeted neonatal echocardiography (TNE) provided neonatal intensivists with a bedside tool that made real-time assessment of neonatal hemodynamics status feasible in even the tiniest of babies. This opened the door towards more targeted physiological driven practices, allowing us to test historical approaches to clinical problems in a more precise way. Despite the standardization of TNE training and the creation of a formalized curriculum, little attention has been paid to the establishment of an empirical framework to adjudicate scientific investigation. In this position statement, we reflect on the evolution of TNE in Canadian neonatal intensive care units, appraise its strengths and limitations, and suggest guiding principles for clinicians and researchers to consider as they take this field forward.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.013
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0100.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.338 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→