Accuracy of Sonographically Guided Biopsy Using a Freehand Versus Needle-Guided Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sonographically guided biopsy is performed by one of two techniques: the freehand and needle-guided techniques. To our knowledge, the relationship between the location of the local anesthetic tract and the biopsy needle tract as well as direct comparison of the two biopsy techniques has not been previously validated. The aim of this study was to validate the different parameters related to the two biopsy techniques using computed tomography as the reference standard for assessing final tract positions. There were statistically significant differences between the freehand and guided techniques in the following parameters: number of passes required for contrast agent injection (P = .003), number of passes required to insert the needle (P = .005), time required to inject the anesthetic/contrast agent (P = .005), time required to insert the biopsy needle (P = .02), and distance between contrast tract and final needle position (P = .03). No statistical difference was identified for the angle between the contrast tract and needle position. This difference likely reflects the confidence of the radiologist in identifying the needle location during the procedure. Using a commercially available guide that has a fixed angle can result in a faster, more efficient, and reproducible biopsy technique compared to the freehand technique, especially for those who have less experience in performing sonographically guided biopsies.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".