Comparison of risks from percutaneous central venous catheters and peripheral lines in infants of extremely low birth weight: a cohort controlled study of infants < 1000 g
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate in infants of < 1000 g (extremely low birth weight; ELBW) the success rate of insertion of percutaneous central venous catheters (PCVC) and their duration; and the short- and long-term complications, i.e. mechanical and infectious, when compared to a control group of infants of the same age treated only with peripheral venous access. STUDY DESIGN: A cohort of 44 ELBW infants managed with PCVC (study group) was compared to a cohort of 44 infants managed only with peripheral venous access (control group). The two groups were matched for birth weight, gestational age and gender, and were comparable for severity of illness (CRIB scores). RESULTS: The success rate of PCVC insertion was 74% with the right axillary vein being the most frequently used site. The mean duration of PCVC treatment was 28 +/- 13 days. The reasons for removal of the catheter were: cessation of the total parenteral nutrition administration in 75% of the cases and occlusion in 25%. There were three infectious episodes for a total of 1138 catheter days in the PCVC group vs. 12 episodes for a total of 1114 days (p = 0.03) in the control group. Three infants died in the study group and 11 infants died in the control group (p = 0.05) of infants of ELBW. CONCLUSION: Insertion of PCVC is successful in the vast majority of cases and carries a lower risk of infection than multiple insertions of peripheral lines in infants of ELBW. It prevents repeat and painful introductions of intravenous needles.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".