The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy, and the Asian Australasian Federation of Pain Societies Joint Committee Recommendations for Education and Training in Ultrasound-Guided Interventional Pain Procedures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of ultrasound in pain medicine for interventional axial, nonaxial, and musculoskeletal pain procedures is rapidly evolving and growing. Because of the lack of specialty-specific guidelines for ultrasonography in pain medicine, an international collaborative effort consisting of members of the Special Interest Group on Ultrasonography in Pain Medicine from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy, and the Asian Australasian Federation of Pain Societies developed the following recommendations for education and training in ultrasound-guided interventional pain procedures. The purpose of these recommendations is to define the required skills for performing ultrasound-guided pain procedures, the processes for appropriate education, and training and quality improvement. Training algorithms are outlined for practice- and fellowship-based pathways. The previously published American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy education and teaching recommendations for ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia served as a foundation for the pain medicine recommendations. Although the decision to grant ultrasound privileges occurs at the institutional level, the committee recommends that the training guidelines outlined in this document serve as the foundation for educational training and the advancement of the practice of ultrasonography in pain medicine.
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.
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 | 0.047 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 it