MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978199318 · doi:10.14740/jocmr3941

Is Bedside End-Tidal CO<sub>2</sub> Measurement a Screening Tool to Exclude Pulmonary Embolism in Emergency Department?

2019· article· en· W2978199318 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Metin Özdemir, Bedriye Müge Sönmez, Fevzi Yılmaz, Aykut Yılmaz, Murat Duyan, Seval Komut

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentPulmonary embolismD-dimerPre- and post-test probabilityMedical diagnosisRadiologySpiral computed tomographyDiagnostic accuracyDiagnostic testPredictive valueComputed tomographyEmergency medicineInternal medicineNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is among the most difficult conditions to diagnose in emergency department. The majority of patients thought to have PE are tested positive for D-dimer and subsequently tested with advanced diagnostic modalities. Novel noninvasive tests capable of excluding PE may obviate the need for advanced imaging tests. We studied the role of combined clinical probability assessment and end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO 2 ) measurement for diagnosis of possible PE in emergency department. Methods: We included 100 consecutive subjects suspected to have PE and a positive D-dimer test to study clinical probability of PE and ETCO 2 levels. ETCO 2 > 34 mm Hg was found to be the best cut-off point for diagnosing PE. PE was ultimately eliminated or diagnosed by spiral computed tomography (CT). Results: Diagnostic performances of tests were as follows: ETCO 2 and D-dimer had a sensitivity of 100% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% at the cut-off levels of 34 mm Hg and 500 ng/mL, respectively; Wells score had a sensitivity of 80% and NPV of 69.7% at a score of 4. Conclusions: ETCO 2 alone cannot reliably exclude PE. Combining it with clinical probability, however, reliably and correctly eliminates or diagnoses PE and prevents further testing to be done. J Clin Med Res. 2019;11(10):696-702 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr3941

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207