MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971199706 · doi:10.1111/vec.12883

Interobserver agreement between non‐cardiologist veterinarians and a cardiologist after a 6‐hour training course for echographic evaluation of basic echocardiographic parameters and caudal vena cava diameter in 15 healthy Beagles

2019· article· en· W2971199706 on OpenAlexaff
Élodie Darnis, Anne Christine Merveille, Loïc Desquilbet, Søren Boysen, Kris Gommeren

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Conditions and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVentricleCardiologyInternal medicineDiastoleNuclear medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cardiovascular focused assessment with sonography for trauma and triage (CV-FAST) interobserver agreement for echocardiographic parameters and caudal vena cava (CVC) diameter measurement, between a cardiologist and 2 non-cardiologists after a 6-hour training course. SETTING: University veterinary teaching hospital. ANIMALS: Fifteen healthy Beagle dogs. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Echocardiography parameters were assessed via standardized views. Caudal vena cava was assessed via a subxiphoid window (CVC-SubX) using 3 measurements (minimal and maximal CVC diameter, and collapsibility index) and via a dorsolateral window (CVC-DL) using 1 measurement (CVC diameter). Bland-Altman analysis assessed agreement of each non-cardiologist with the cardiologist; coefficients of variation (CoV) quantified variability between observers. The 95% limits of agreement (LOA) and CoVs were considered acceptable for left atrial diameter, left atrium to aortic ratio, normalized left ventricle diameter in diastole and systole but non-acceptable for fractional shortening and pulmonary vein to pulmonary artery ratio. For CVC-SubX, the 95% LOA for maximum CVC diameter were acceptable, while minimum CVC diameter and CVC collapsibility index were non-acceptable. The CoVs were good for maximum and minimum CVC (7%) and poor for collapsibility index (37%). For CVC-DL, the 95% LOA were non-acceptable, although the CoV was considered good (11%). CONCLUSIONS: of the CV-FAST exam in healthy Beagles. Standardization of the CVC-SubX technique and assessment of the impact of the respiratory phase on CVC diameter in dogs is needed. Further studies are required to determine whether interobserver agreement remains acceptable when including different breeds. Assessment of basic echocardiographic parameters and the CVC to estimate volume status in small animal medicine merits further clinical evaluation.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical CareSame topicCardiovascular Conditions and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207