Determining epidural catheter location using nerve stimulation with radiological confirmation*1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The use of epidural stimulation to confirm epidural catheter placement has been shown. This case report describes the benefits and problems of using the epidural stimulation test to confirm epidural catheter placement and provides supporting evidence for these observations using radiological imaging. METHODS: A nerve stimulator was connected to the proximal end of an epidural catheter via an adapter. The cathode lead was connected to the adapter. The anode lead was connected to an electrode placed on the upper extremity as a grounding site. Using 1 to 10 mA current, a segmental motor response indicated that the catheter was in the epidural space. The absence of a motor response indicated that it was not. CASES: In the first patient, the new test predicted subcutaneous epidural catheter placement, which was subsequently confirmed radiologically. In the second patient, the catheter tip was found to be lying near a nerve root, which was again confirmed radiologically. In the third case, a negative test was initially observed with only local muscle movement over the biceps area (T2). After relocation of the grounding electrode to the lower extremity, segmental intercostal muscle movement (T4-5 level) was observed. The catheter placement was radiologically shown to be in the T4-5 region. CONCLUSION: This report illustrates some of the potential benefits and problems of using the nerve stimulation test to confirm epidural catheter placement, with radiological verification.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".