MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203802236 · doi:10.1016/j.xjon.2021.09.041

Commentary: The choice of arterial pressure monitoring in adult cardiac surgery should be individualized. The devil is in the details

2021· editorial· en· W3203802236 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Juan N. Pulido

Bibliographic record

VenueJTCVS Open · 2021
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadial arteryArterial lineBlood pressureCardiologyCardiac surgeryFemoral arteryArteryInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intra-arterial or invasive blood pressure monitoring is the standard of care in cardiothoracic surgery and is common in the intensive care unit. Usually, a radial artery is chosen in adults. This artery is frequently used due to ease of access, safety profile, and dual circulation of the hand. Nonetheless, it is also common to experience inaccuracies, specifically under-reading, leading to overtreatment of false hypotension. Possible factors leading to a radial-to-central arterial pressure gradient include length of bypass, crossclamp time, hypothermia, vasopressor use, and small patient size.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0430.041
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.017

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJTCVS OpenSame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207