MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201194548 · doi:10.1177/0310057x211034181

Inferior vena cava assessment in term pregnant women using ultrasound: A comparison of the subcostal and right upper quadrant views

2021· article· en· W3201194548 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia and Intensive Care · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInferior vena cavaQuadrant (abdomen)Interquartile rangeSurgeryParasternal lineRadiologyProspective cohort studyUltrasound

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.304 · 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