Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have examined ultrasound-assisted brachial plexus blocks, but few have applied this imaging technology to the interscalene region. We report a case of interscalene brachial plexus block using ultrasound guidance to show the clinical usefulness of this technology. CASE REPORT: A nerve stimulator-guided interscalene block was attempted for arthroscopic shoulder surgery but failed. Subsequent nerve localization was accomplished by ultrasound imaging using a high-frequency probe (5-12 MHz) and the Philips ATL HDI 5000 unit. Ultrasound showed nerves between the scalene muscles, block needle movement at the time of advancement, and local anesthetic spread during injection. Interscalene block was successful after 1 attempt of nerve localization and needle placement. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced ultrasound technology is useful for nerve localization and can generate brachial plexus images of high resolution in the interscalene groove, guide block needle placement and advancement in real time to targeted nerves, and assess adequacy of local anesthetic spread at the time of injection. Ultrasound imaging guidance can potentially improve success during interscalene brachial plexus block.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".