Central venous catheterization in infants and children – small caliber audio‐Doppler probe <i>versus</i> ultrasound scanner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ultrasound guidance for cannulation of the internal jugular vein has been shown to increase the success rate and reduce the incidence of complications in infants and children. We compared the use of a small caliber audio-Doppler probe with an ultrasound scanner for cannulation of a central venous (CV) line via the right internal jugular vein in infants and children. METHODS: Fifty-two infants and 29 children scheduled for open-heart surgery were enrolled. Cannulation was guided using a small caliber audio-Doppler probe (the AU group, n = 42), or an ultrasound scanner image (the US group, n = 39). Ultimate success rate, success rate at the first attempt, success rate within 5 min, and complications were compared for the two groups. RESULTS: In children (>12 months), both methods were equally efficient. But in infants (<12 months), success rate at the first attempt using audio-Doppler was worse than the rate using an ultrasound scanner and there were more complications when audio-Doppler was used. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that application of both the audio-Doppler and the ultrasound scanner is useful in children over 1 year of age for access to the internal jugular vein. However, in infants and neonates, the ultrasound scanner would be more useful than the audio-Doppler.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".