The Electrophysiological Effect of Dextrose 5% in Water on Single-Shot Peripheral Nerve Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief When performing regional anesthesia, a small volume of local anesthetic or normal saline abolishes a motor response induced by a low current (0.5 mA). In this case series we describe the electrophysiological effect of a nonconducting (dextrose 5% in water, D5W) injectate on a motor response elicited by low current electrical stimulation. Twenty-nine peripheral nerve blocks were performed in 20 patients using insulated needles. Each needle was primed with D5W. The needle was advanced towards the target nerve until corresponding motor responses were observed using a current of 0.5 mA or less. Once the needle position was optimally placed, 1 mL of D5W was injected followed by a predetermined dose of local anesthetic. The effects of the injectates (D5W and local anesthetic) on the motor response were observed at all needle insertion sites. In all cases, the motor response was at least maintained or augmented (96%) immediately after the injection of D5W. All motor responses diminished after the injection of local anesthetic (100%). All blocks were considered clinically successful. IMPLICATIONS: The injection of a nonconducting solution (D5W) maintains or augments a motor response elicited by 0.5 mA or less by decreasing the conductive surface area and increasing the current density at the needle tip. Using an injection of D5W during single-shot peripheral nerve block may provide a uniform electrical field around the stimulating needle tip and a reproducible motor response.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".