Bibliographic record
Abstract
I read with interest the letter (Dollman & Sellers. Anaesthesia 2002; 57: 195) regarding arterial line insertion. I have two comments on the subject. The use of a loss-of-resistance syringe seems like quite an expensive way of achieving arterial cannulation when there is a cheaper alternative. After the artery has been transfixed, the metal needle is removed. Attach a 2-ml syringe to the plastic cannula and aspirate on the syringe whilst withdrawing the cannula. There will be a definite flush of arterial blood when the tip of the cannula is in the artery and will achieve the same results as using an expensive (and not always immediately available) loss-of-resistance syringe. When trying to thread the cannula inside the artery Dollman et al. suggest rotating the cannula to prevent it buckling. An alternative is to hold the cannula against the skin with a steret or piece of sterile gauze soaked in antibacterial solution. This means the operator's fingers can prevent buckling of the cannula, and maintain an aseptic technique whilst allowing aspiration on the syringe to constantly confirm the position of the cannula in the artery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.012 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".