A systematic review of ultrasound‐guided methods for brachial plexus blockade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".