MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2206340279 · doi:10.1111/anae.13347

A systematic review of ultrasound‐guided methods for brachial plexus blockade

2015· review· en· W2206340279 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCentre Hospitalier Universitaire VaudoisUniversité de Lausanne
KeywordsMedicineBrachial plexusBlockadeAnesthesiaUltrasoundRelative riskSurgeryConfidence intervalRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We systematically reviewed 25 randomised controlled trials of ultrasound-guided brachial plexus blockade that recruited 1948 participants: either one approach vs another (axillary, infraclavicular or supraclavicular); or one injection vs multiple injections. There were no differences in the rates of successful blockade with approach, relative risk (95% CI): axillary vs infraclavicular, 1.0 (1.0-1.1), p = 0.97; axillary vs supraclavicular, 1.0 (1.0-1.1), p = 0.68; and infraclavicular vs supraclavicular, 1.0 (1.0-1.1), p = 0.32. There was no difference in the rate of successful blockade with the number of injections, relative risk (95% CI) 1.0 (1.0-1.0), p = 0.69, for one vs multiple injections. The rate of procedural paraesthesia was less with one injection than multiple injections, relative risk (95% CI) 0.6 (0.4-0.9), p = 0.004.

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.347 · 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