The role of routine cardiac investigations before hyperbaric oxygen treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac complications are a rare but potentially serious consequence of hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT), resulting from increased blood pressure and decreased heart rate and cardiac output associated with treatment. These physiologic changes are generally well-tolerated by patients without preexisting cardiac conditions, although those with known or undetected cardiac disease may be more vulnerable to treatment complications. Currently, there are no universally accepted guidelines for pre-HBOT cardiac screening to identify these patients at heightened risk, leading to variability in practice patterns. In the absence of HBOT-specific evidence, screening protocols might be adapted from the diving medicine community; however, given the important differences in physiological stressors, these may not be entirely applicable to patients undergoing HBOT. Traditional cardiac investigations such as electro- and echo-cardiograms are limited in their ability to detect relevant risk modifying states in the pre-HBOT patient, stymieing their cost-effectiveness as routine tests. In the absence of strong evidence to support routine cardiac investigation, we argue that a comprehensive history and physical exam - tailored to identify high-risk patients based on clinical parameters - may serve as a more practical screening tool. While certain unique patient groups such as those undergoing dialysis or with implanted cardiac devices may warrant specialised assessment, thorough evaluation may be sufficient to identify many patients unlikely to benefit from cardiac investigation in the pre-HBOT setting. A clinical decision-making tool based on suggested low-risk and high-risk features is offered to guide the use of targeted cardiac investigation prior to HBOT.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".