Radiology-Implanted Arm Ports: A Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Placement of totally implanted venous access devices, or port systems, in the upper arm is becoming a common practice in interventional radiology. To gain a better understanding of the literature in this area, we performed a search for and analysis of previous publications related to upper arm implantation of these devices by members of interventional radiology departments. Methods: A review of the literature pertaining to upper arm port systems implanted in human beings by members of interventional radiology departments was performed, assessing publications between the years 1992 and 2014. Only English-language publications were assessed. Results: Eighteen publications met selection criteria during the time frame reviewed. None of the studies used a prospective, randomized design; rather, all studies consisted of case–cohort descriptions of outcomes for a single device or for multiple devices. Analysis of the available literature for interventional radiology-inserted arm ports was performed. The technical success rate ranged between 93.7% and 100%, with an average of 98.9%. Conclusions: The high technical success rate of arm port implantation and the elimination of the potential for pneumothorax, hemothorax, catheter pinch-off syndrome, and subclavian and carotid artery injury are strengths of the arm implantation strategy. There was wide variation in the rates of complications detected, in addition to inconsistent study design and study implementation strategies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".