Inferior vena cava assessment in term pregnant women using ultrasound: A comparison of the subcostal and right upper quadrant views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Point-of-care ultrasound can be used at the bedside to assess the haemodynamic status and fluid responsiveness of a pregnant woman. Previous studies demonstrated that views from the apical and parasternal windows are readily obtainable in labouring women. However, using the subcostal window to assess the inferior vena cava can be challenging because of the gravid uterus. A potential alternative is the right upper quadrant transhepatic window. We sought to compare visualisation of the inferior vena cava via the subcostal and right upper quadrant windows, in full-term pregnant women. This was a prospective pilot study carried out in a tertiary academic obstetric centre. Thirty pregnant non-labouring women at full term were recruited. In each patient, the inferior vena cava was visualised through both the subcostal and the right upper quadrant windows. Time to acquire each image, acquisition success rates and ease of obtaining images were compared for both approaches. Image quality was then reviewed and rated by two independent expert reviewers. There was a significant difference in the time required to obtain each view; subcostal median (interquartile range): 52 (35–59) seconds, right upper quadrant median (interquartile range): 23 (11–55) seconds ( P=0.0045). Operator-defined successful image acquisition was 100% for the right upper quadrant window compared to 80% for the subcostal window. Ease of obtaining the view, as rated by the operator, was significantly easier in the right upper quadrant window compared to the subcostal window ( P <0.0001). Both reviewers independently rated image adequacy to be significantly greater in the right upper quadrant window (73% and 57%) compared to the subcostal window (40% and 10%) ( P=0.0213 and P=0.0005, respectively). Inter-rater agreement ranged between good (Cohen’s kappa coefficient 0.64) for right upper quadrant windows to fair (Cohen’s kappa coefficient 0.29) for subcostal windows. Inferior vena cava visualisation in term pregnant patients may take less time, be easier and provide better quality images when the right upper quadrant window is used compared to the subcostal window.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".