The use of Guyton’s approach to the control of cardiac output for clinical fluid management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infusion of fluids is one of the most common medical acts when resuscitating critically ill patients. However, fluids most often are given without consideration of how fluid infusion can actually improve tissue perfusion. Arthur Guyton's analysis of the circulation was based on how cardiac output is determined by the interaction of the factors determining the return of blood to the heart, i.e. venous return, and the factors that determine the output from the heart, i.e. pump function. His theoretical approach can be used to understand what fluids can and cannot do. In his graphical analysis, right atrial pressure (RAP) is at the center of this interaction and thus indicates the status of these two functions. Accordingly, trends in RAP and cardiac output (or a surrogate of cardiac output) can provide important guides for the cause of a hemodynamic deterioration, the potential role of fluids, the limits of their use, and when the fluid is given, the response to therapeutic interventions. Use of the trends in these values provide a physiologically grounded approach to clinical fluid management.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".