MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097905079 · doi:10.1016/j.java.2013.06.002

Fluoroscopy During Removal of 50 Upper Arm Venous Ports

2013· article· en· W2097905079 on OpenAlexaff
Brent Burbridge, Nicolette Sinclair, Grant Stoneham, Robert Otani, Peter Szkup

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Vascular Access · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsRoyal University Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCatheterMedicineFluoroscopyElbowSurgeryVeinPort (circuit theory)Radiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The Cook Vital Port system was observed with fluoroscopy before elective removal. A previous publication noted that catheter fracture with this device occurred at the entry of the catheter into the vein used for catheter deployment. We hypothesized that catheter rupture at the vein entry site may be due to ballooning of the catheter during injection, or possibly due to angulation of the catheter during arm movements. Methods: Port system contrast injection and fluoroscopy was performed for 50 consecutive patients who attended for elective arm vein port removal. Assessment of the angle of entry of the catheter into the arm vein was performed with the arm in anatomic position and during arm movements. Results: There was no evidence of catheter ballooning or distortion during contrast injection. There was no evidence of fibrin sheath formation at the catheter tip. One catheter was observed to leak at the vein entry site with the injection of contrast. The only arm movement that affected the angle of the catheter at the vein entry site was flexion at the elbow. The average change in the angle of the catheter between anatomic position and full elbow flexion was 22.4°C. Conclusions: The hypothesis of ballooning of the catheter at the vein entry site during injection was not confirmed. We observed a wide variation in catheter angulation with elbow flexion. The exact cause for catheter fracture remains unknown.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association for Vascular AccessSame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207