MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003661631 · doi:10.1016/j.rapm.2004.02.002

Electrophysiologic effect of injectates on peripheral nerve stimulation

2004· article· en· W2003661631 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

VenueRegional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeripheral nerve stimulationPeripheralStimulationPeripheral nerveNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnesthesiaAnatomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A small volume of local anesthetic or normal saline abolishes the muscle twitch induced by a 1ow current (0.5 mA) during electrolocation. This study examines the hypothesis that the mechanism of this phenomenon is primarily the electrophysiologic effect of the injectate on the electrical current density at the needle tip. METHODS: Five pigs were studied. An insulated Tuohy needle was inserted in each pig toward the left and right brachial plexuses and the left and right femoral nerves. The needle was advanced until corresponding motor responses were observed at each site, using a current of 0.5 mA. The effect of injecting 1 mL each of normal saline and 5% dextrose in water (NS and D5W) on muscle twitch was investigated at all 20 needle insertion sites. Changes in the conductive area induced by the injectates were also demonstrated using gel electrophoresis. RESULTS: In all cases, the muscle twitches were abolished immediately after the injection of NS and recovered instantaneously after a subsequent injection of D5W. The electrical resistance between the needle and the ground electrodes decreased instantly after the NS injection. The resistance not only recovered but also increased after the injection of D5W. In the gel electrophoresis experiment, the results demonstrated that the expanded conductive area induced by the saline column surrounding the insulated needle was similar to that observed with the uninsulated needle. CONCLUSION: The injection of a conducting solution (i.e., NS) rendered the current that was previously sufficient to elicit a motor response (0.5 mA) ineffective. The most likely reason for this change is that the conductive area surrounding the stimulating needle expanded after the injection and dispersion of the conducting solution (i.e., NS), thereby reducing the current density at the target nerve. This effect can be reversed by injecting a nonconducting solution (i.e., D5W) via the stimulating needle.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.242 · 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