MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041059221 · doi:10.1097/aap.0b013e3181e82e79

Ultrasound Provides a Reliable Test of Local Anesthetic Spread

2010· article· en· W2041059221 on OpenAlexaff
Colin J. L. McCartney, Victoria M. Dickinson, Adam Dubrowski, Sheila Riazi, Paul McHardy, Imad T. Awad

Bibliographic record

VenueRegional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSickKids FoundationSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUltrasoundLocal anestheticImaging phantomPeripheral nerveNerve blockRadiologyRegional anesthesiaRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaBiomedical engineeringSurgeryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We predicted that practitioners could identify injectate spread in a model of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block. METHODS: Both novices and experts in ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block were asked to recognize the spread of local anesthetic in a gelatin ultrasound phantom. In a blinded and randomized fashion, these participants were observed to either successfully or unsuccessfully state whether an injection had been made. RESULTS: Twelve novices and 8 experts each completed the trials. Accuracy, Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for all trials. Users attained a very high accuracy and sensitivity (> 85%) as well as specificity (> 90%) with ultrasound in this model. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that ultrasound is a reliable method of detecting injectate spread in a gelatin phantom model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegional Anesthesia & Pain MedicineSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207