Epidural catheterization in cardiac surgery: The 2012 risk assessment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The risk assessment of epidural hematoma due to catheter placement in patients undergoing cardiac surgery is essential since its benefits have to be weighed against risks, such as the risk of paraplegia. We determined the risk of the catheter-related epidural hematoma in cardiac surgery based on the cases reported in the literature up to September 2012. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included all reported cases of epidural catheter placement for cardiac surgery in web and in literature from 1966 to September 2012. Risks of other medical and non-medical activities were retrieved from recent reviews or national statistical reports. RESULTS: Based on our analysis the risk of catheter-related epidural hematoma is 1 in 5493 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1/970-1/31114. The risk of catheter-related epidural hematoma in cardiac surgery is similar to the risk in the general surgery population at 1 in 6,628 (95% CI 1/1,170-1/37,552). CONCLUSIONS: The present risk calculation does not justify not offering epidural analgesia as part of a multimodal analgesia protocol in cardiac surgery.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it