MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Accuracy of Echocardiographic Cardiac Output Assessment by Critical Care Fellows

2024· article· en· W4403467955 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jordan Talan, Keshav Mangalick, Deepak Pradhan, Harald Sauthoff

Bibliographic record

VenueATS Scholar · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork UniversityStony Wold-Herbert Fund
KeywordsCardiologyMedicineInternal medicineMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.339 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueATS ScholarSame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207