MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

770: POINT-OF-CARE ULTRASOUND IN THE PEDIATRIC CARDIAC ICU: SURVEY OF USE, NEEDS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

2023· article· en· W4389728856 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin W. Kozyak, Jamie Penk, Shazia Bhombal, David K. Werho, Gabriella Centers, J. Wesley Diddle, Saúl Flores, Alejandro A. Floh, Anyir Hsieh, Mjaye Mazwi, Michael Martinez, Jaclyn McKinstry, Marcos Mills, Meghna D. Patel, Michelle Ramírez, Yogen Singh, R.C. Willett, Boran Li, Niranjan Vijayakumar, Erik Su

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePoint of care ultrasoundPoint (geometry)UltrasoundRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has expanded rapidly across Critical Care Medicine. It has made procedures safer, while informing and expediting the evaluation of patients with cardiorespiratory failure. Pediatric Cardiac Critical Care is unique in the complexity of its patients and multidisciplinary approach. Despite a large number of cardiologist-intensivists, the field lacks consensus on the appropriate use of POCUS. We endeavored to understand current usage patterns, perspective on appropriate scope, perceived needs, and barriers to POCUS within Pediatric Cardiac ICUs. Methods: A 33-question survey was developed, vetted by the Scientific Committees of the Pediatric Cardiac Intensive Care Society (PCICS) and the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators (PALISI). It was distributed by PCICS, and the results analyzed. Results: Ninety-one CICU providers (75 MDs, 16 NPs) completed the survey, representing 55 institutions and 63% of PC4 centers. Most were dedicated CICUs in the U.S.; 7 were international. 63% were in their first 10 years of practice, 36% in their first 5. Nearly all utilized POCUS for vascular access. US was also used for thoracentesis (76%), paracentesis (58%), and cardiac assessments (68%), including evaluation of cardiac arrest (47%). Chest tubes were most often placed by cardiac surgeons in 75% of CICUs represented, and by intensivists in 25%; intensivists were more likely to use US (85% vs 36%). Use of POCUS for all of the above applications was felt by most respondents to be both feasible and relevant. Ninety-five percent (95%) and 70% of respondents believed that CICU MDs and NPs should use POCUS for limited cardiac assessments, respectively. Barriers include lack of time (54%), education (49%), quality assurance (44%), credentialing (41%), and established workflows (40%). Interestingly, 45% of respondents also cited limitations imposed by peers. Conclusions: Procedural and diagnostic POCUS, including targeted cardiac assessments, are highly relevant to pediatric CICU practice, and felt by providers to be both feasible and in-scope for MDs and NPs alike. Effort should be focused on openly addressing both infrastructural and cultural barriers, in order to ensure that bedside ultrasound is utilized rigorously and safely in our vulnerable CICU patients.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care Medicine→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→