Ultrasound confirmation of guidewire position may eliminate accidental arterial dilatation during central venous cannulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ultrasound guidance during central line insertion has significantly reduced complications associated with this procedure and has led to it being incorporated as standard of care in many institutions. However, inadvertent arterial penetration and dilation remains a problem despite ultrasound guidance and can result in significant morbidity and even mortality. Dynamic ultrasound confirmation of guidewire position within the vein prior to dilation may help to prevent and even eliminate this feared complication. METHODS: A prospectively collected database of central line insertions for one author utilizing this novel technique was retrospectively reviewed for all incidents of arterial dilation over a period from September 2008 to January 2010. RESULTS: During the study period 53 central lines were inserted with no incidents of arterial dilation. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound confirmation of guidewire position has the potential to reduce or eliminate the morbidity and mortality of arterial dilation during central line 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 | 0.001 | 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".