Accuracy of Echocardiographic Cardiac Output Assessment by Critical Care Fellows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Advanced critical care echocardiography comprises a specific set of qualitative and quantitative point-of-care echocardiography skills, including a reliable, noninvasive method to measure cardiac output. This technique requires echocardiographic measurement of left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) diameter and LVOT velocity time integral (VTI). Although there is a demand among critical care fellows to learn these advanced techniques, there are no data describing the acquisition of mastery in these skills. Objective This pilot study aims to describe the accuracy of echocardiographic measurement of LVOT diameter and LVOT VTI obtained by critical care fellows after an educational intervention, as well as to enhance validation evidence for an image scoring assessment that is applicable to these measurements. Methods We implemented a brief mastery learning intervention to teach the measurement of LVOT diameter and VTI. Fellow measurements of these parameters, along with the corresponding echocardiographic images, were compared with a gold standard of measurements obtained by professional echocardiography technicians and interpreted by cardiologists. Results Seven fellows performed 35 echocardiograms on 32 patients. The average fellow-reported LVOT VTI was 17.0 ± 4.37 cm, whereas the average cardiologist-reported VTI was 17.3 ± 5.19 cm. The correlation (r) between fellow and cardiologist-reported VTI was 0.73 (P < 0.001), with a mean percent difference of 19.5 ± 12.0%. The average fellow-reported LVOT diameter was 2.07 ± 0.23 cm, whereas the average cardiologist-reported LVOT diameter was 2.08 ± 0.22 cm. The correlation (r) between fellow and cardiologist-reported LVOT diameter was 0.51 (P = 0.004), with a mean percent difference of 8.05 ± 7.0%. The sensitivity for fellows to detect an abnormal LVOT VTI was 91%, with a specificity of 43%. Conclusion Critical care fellow measurement of LVOT VTI and LVOT diameter demonstrated strong and moderate positive correlations with cardiologist-reported values, respectively, with acceptable clinical agreement. However, interrater reliability and percent differences showed room for improvement. Education in these advanced skills is resource intensive, and additional research is needed to determine the most effective approach to training fellows.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".