Use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) via scalp veins in neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to describe the use and complications of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) via scalp veins in neonates. METHODS: A retrospective review of neonates who had PICCs inserted, between January 2010 and June 2013, in the NICU at Children's and Women's Health Center of British Columbia. RESULTS: During the study period, 689 PICCs were inserted over a total of 46 728 NICU patient days. The PICC insertion sites were scalp veins (69), upper limb veins (471), and lower limb veins (149). The mean catheter durations were 17 d, 19 d, and 18 d for PICCs inserted through scalp, upper limb, and lower limb veins, respectively. The complication rates were 23%, 23%, and 15% for insertion via scalp, upper, and lower limb veins, respectively. Centrally placed PICCs at the time of insertion were more likely to remain in situ for longer than one week (p < 0.001). The incidence of central line-associated blood stream infection was 4.4, 6.4, and 3.4 per 1000 catheter days, respectively, for scalp, upper, and lower limb PICCs. CONCLUSIONS: Insertion of PICC via the scalp veins are feasible and not associated with higher complication rates compared with insertions via other sites.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".