MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2968162553 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v9n11p19

Decreased cardiac output: Diagnostic accuracy in heart transplant candidates

2019· article· en· W2968162553 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lígia Neres Matos, Tereza Cristina Felippe Guimarães, Viviani Christini da Silva Lima, Ana Carla Dantas Cavalcanti, Liana Amorim Corrêa Trotte, Marcos Antônio Gomes Brandão

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyCardiac outputInternal medicinePredictive valueJugular veinHeart failureVeinCatheterRadiologyHemodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To identify the accuracy of non-invasive, defining characteristics for the nursing diagnosis of Decreased Cardiac Output among patients with heart failure.Methods: Cross-sectional study. This study included 17 patients considered heart transplant candidates during the data collection period were selected (from May 2013 to May 2014). They were evaluated by the experts, and the cardiac output value was measured using a Swan Ganz® catheter.Results: Accuracy of the experts in diagnosing decreased cardiac output among patients with HF was high. Jugular vein stasis and electrocardiogram changes exhibited greater positive and negative predictive power for diagnosis.Conclusions: It was concluded that jugular vein stasis and electrocardiogram changes were the defining characteristics that reached satisfactory efficiency values and were more relevant in producing correct classifications of the occurrence of decreased cardiac output by the moderate and high sensitivity and specificity of each defining characteristic.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.345 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→