Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The use of ultrasound for peripheral nerve blockade is becoming popular. Although the feasibility of ultrasound-guided nerve blockade is now clear, it is uncertain at this time whether it represents the new standard for regional anesthesia in terms of efficacy and safety. RECENT FINDINGS: The ability to visualize nerve location, needle advancement, needle-nerve interaction, and local anesthetic spread makes ultrasound-guided nerve block an attractive option. Study results indicate that these advantages can improve the ease of block performance, block success rates, and complications. At the same time there is evidence that ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia is a unique skill in its own right, and that proficiency in it requires training and experience. SUMMARY: Ultrasound is a valuable tool that is now available to the regional anesthesiologist, and it is fast becoming a standard part of practice. It promises to be of especial value to the less experienced practitioner. Ultrasound does not in itself, however, guarantee the efficacy and safety of peripheral nerve blockade. Proper training in its use is required and we can expect to see the development of formal standards and guidelines in this regard.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".