Thoracic Epidural Catheter Placement Via the Caudal Approach in Infants by Using Electrocardiographic Guidance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: We examined the success of inserting epidural catheters via the caudal route in infants by using electrocardiographic guidance. A case series of 20 patients with thoracic epidural analgesia was studied. After the induction of general anesthesia, an 18-gauge IV catheter was inserted into the caudal space to allow threading of a 20-gauge epidural catheter. The electrocardiogram (ECG) tracings via the epidural catheter, as well as the surface ECG at the target spine level, were recorded simultaneously with a modified two-channel five-lead ECG system. The epidural catheter was advanced from the caudal space until the tip reached the target level as demonstrated by a match in the configuration of the epidural ECG tracing to that of the surface ECG tracing at the target level. The catheter tip location was verified by postoperative radiographs. All catheter tips were located within two vertebrae of the target level, and satisfactory intraoperative epidural anesthesia was achieved in all subjects. IMPLICATIONS: Epidural electrocardiography may be used to guide the positioning of the thoracic epidural catheter tip via the caudal approach to the appropriate dermatome for optimum analgesia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".