MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ultrasound-Guided Supraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block

2003· article· en· W2041887448 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Chan, Anahi Perlas, Regan Rawson, O.A. Odukoya

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrachial plexusUltrasoundBrachial plexus blockLocal anestheticPneumothoraxNerve blockClavicleRadiologyAnesthesiaAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: In this study, we evaluated state-of-the-art ultrasound technology for supraclavicular brachial plexus blocks in 40 outpatients. Ultrasound imaging was used to identify the brachial plexus before the block, guide the block needle to reach target nerves, and visualize the pattern of local anesthetic spread. Needle position was further confirmed by nerve stimulation before injection. The block technique we describe aligned the needle path with the ultrasound beam. The block was successful after one attempt in 95% of the cases, with one failure attributable to subcutaneous injection and one to partial intravascular injection. Pneumothorax did not occur. Our preliminary data suggest that a high-resolution ultrasound probe can reliably identify the brachial plexus and its neighboring structures in the supraclavicular region. The technique of real-time guidance during needle advancement can quickly localize nerves. Distinct patterns of local anesthetic spread observed on ultrasound can further confirm accurate needle location. IMPLICATIONS: Real-time ultrasound imaging during supraclavicular brachial plexus blocks can facilitate nerve localization and needle placement and examine the pattern of local anesthetic spread.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.263
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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations328
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207