Invasive and noninvasive cardiovascular monitoring options for cardiac surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until recently, PACs have been used routinely in cardiovascular critical care in a large proportion of centers surveyed2Judge O. Ji F. Fleming N. Liu H. Current use of the pulmonary artery catheter in cardiac surgery: a survey study.J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2015; 29: 69-75Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (41) Google Scholar despite evidence demonstrating a lack of clinical benefit in routine cardiac surgery. This may be attributed to ICU models and staffing, and the perceived high reliability of the data. Overtreatment has been demonstrated in many studies using PACs, with negative impact on mechanical ventilation time, fluid balance, postoperative transfusions, ICU LOS, complications, and mortality. A majority of elective cardiac surgical procedures can be performed without a PAC, however; complex multivalve operations, heart failure surgery, heart transplantation, and emergent presentation with shock may warrant invasive monitoring with a PAC.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.010 |
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".