An Ultrasonographic and Histological Study of Intraneural Injection and Electrical Stimulation in Pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief BACKGROUND: In this study we evaluated the minimum stimulating current associated with intraneural needle placement and sonographic appearance of intraneural injection. METHODS: We inserted a needle 2 cm inside 28 pig nerves (brachial plexus in vivo), recorded the minimum current to elicit a motor response, and injected dye (5 mL) under ultrasound (US) imaging. RESULTS: The minimum current to elicit a motor response was 0.43 mA (range: 0.12–1.8 mA). Nerve expansion was visualized by US in 24 of 28 nerves. Histology revealed penetration of the epineurium in these same 24 nerves. There was no evidence of dysplasia within the fascicle of any nerve. CONCLUSIONS: US may prove useful to detect intraneural injection, whereas a motor response above 0.5 mA may not exclude intraneural needle placement. The correlation between intraneural injection and neurological dysfunction remains unclear. IMPLICATIONS: This animal study suggests that ultrasound may prove useful for detecting intraneural injection. Further, a motor response achieved above the conventional stimulating threshold of 0.5 mA may not exclude intraneural needle placement.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".