A theoretical foundation for relating the velocity time integrals of the left ventricular outflow tract and common carotid artery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent investigation by Cheong and colleagues should pique the interest of all clinicians who employ sonography during resuscitation [1].In their report, a novel method of measuring the left common carotid artery, maximum velocity time integral (VTI MAX-CA ) was described and its value was related to the left ventricular outflow tract VTI (VTI LVOT ).Absolute VTI measurements (in centimeters) were made in critically-ill patients, though the population studied was relatively stable, seemingly not on vasoactive medications and with normal cardiac function.Importantly, there was no provocative (i.e., dynamic) maneuver carried out during their investigation.As anticipated, Cheong and colleagues observed a stronger relationship between total (i.e., systolic plus diastolic) VTI MAX-CA and VTI LVOT than between only the systolic portion of the VTI MAX-CA and the VTI LVOT .Of most interest, however, was the near parity between VTI MAX-CA and VTI LVOT in absolute value.Based on their regression equation, the VTI MAX-CA overestimated the VTI LVOT less than 10%.Considering why this might be so elaborates some caveats to their approach.
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 | 0.009 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".