MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Brachial Plexus Examination and Localization Using Ultrasound and Electrical Stimulation

2003· article· en· W2001757055 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrachial plexusUltrasoundBrachial plexus blockNerve blockRadiologyAnatomyNerve stimulationClavicleStimulationNuclear medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Current techniques of brachial plexus block are "blind," and nerve localization can be frustrating and time consuming. Previous studies on ultrasound-assisted brachial plexus blocks are mostly performed with scanning probes of 10 MHz or less. The authors tested the usefulness of a state-of-the-art, high-resolution ultrasound probe (up to 12 MHz) in identifying the brachial plexus in five locations of the upper extremity and in guiding needle advancement to target before nerve stimulation. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, 15 volunteers underwent brachial plexus examination using an L12-L5 MHz probe and a Philips-ATL 5000 ultrasound unit in the interscalene, supraclavicular, infraclavicular, axillary, and midhumeral regions. Thereafter, an insulated block needle was advanced under direct ultrasound guidance to target nerves before confirmation by electrical nerve stimulation in five volunteers in each of the interscalene, supraclavicular, and axillary regions. The quality of brachial plexus images, anatomic variations, and the technique of needle advancement for nerve localization were recorded. RESULTS: The brachial plexus components were successfully identified in the transverse view as round to oval hypoechoic structures with small internal punctuate echos in all regions examined except the infraclavicular area (visualized in 27% of the cases). The authors' technique of advancing the needle in-line with the ultrasound beam allowed moment-by-moment observation of the needle shaft and tip movement at the time of nerve localization. Hypoechoic structures were stimulated electrically and confirmed to be nerves. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary data show that the high-resolution L12-L5 probe provides good quality brachial plexus ultrasound images in the superficial locations i.e., the interscalene, supraclavicular, axillary, and midhumeral regions. The needle technique described here for ultrasound-assisted nerve localization provides real-time guidance and is potentially valuable for brachial plexus blocks.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it