MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416344599 · doi:10.24908/pocusj.v10i02.18823

Agreement of IVC Diameter Measurements via Subcostal and Transhepatic POCUS Views

2025· article· en· W4416344599 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Santiago Beltramino, Giuliano Gaudenzi, Amanda Bruno

Bibliographic record

VenuePOCUS Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorical variableLimits of agreementMeasure (data warehouse)Clinical Practice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Inferior vena cava (IVC) point of care ultrasound (POCUS) is essential for hemodynamic evaluation, with the subcostal view (SCV) being the gold standard. However, in situations where this view is inaccessible, the transhepatic view (THV) is a viable alternative. This study evaluates the concordance between these two views in ventilated and non-ventilated patients, categorizing the IVC as small, intermediate, or large. Methods: This prospective observational study included 99 patients; healthy volunteers, ventilated patients, and non-ventilated patients. We measured end-expiratory IVC diameter, classified as small (<10 mm), intermediate (10-20 mm) or large (>20 mm), via SVC and THV. We then assessed agreement by categorical concordance, using Bland-Altman (mean bias ± 95% limits) and Pearson's correlation (r). Results: The overall concordance between both views was 83.8% (83/99; 95% CI: 76.4-90%). By IVC diameter category, concordance was 93.8% (15/16; 95% CI: 69.8-99.8) for small, 84% (42/50; 95% CI: 70-90 %) for intermediate, and 82% (27/33; 95% CI: 77-95%) for large. Concordance was unaffected by ventilation status (p = 0.83), but patients with Body Mass Index (BMI) ≥ 30 had lower concordance than those with BMI < 30 (73.9% vs. 89.5%; p = 0.086). The Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean bias of +0.22 mm with 95% limits of agreement from -6.99 to +7.43 mm. Pearson's correlation coefficient for the 99 paired measurements was r = 0.86 (p < 0.001), overall, and when stratified by category was r = 0.81 (small), r = 0.78 (intermediate) and r = 0.74 (large) (all p < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of THV for identifying "responders" (CI > 42%) were 28% and 93%, respectively. Conclusion: The THV is a reliable alternative for categorical evaluation of the IVC, particularly when the SCV is inaccessible. This method supports rapid and accurate clinical decision, especially for dichotomous POCUS decisions but should be used cautiously in patients with elevated BMI.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePOCUS JournalSame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207