Ultrasound-Guided Paracentesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Paracentesis is a commonly performed bedside procedure by which peritoneal fluid is obtained from the peritoneal cavity. This procedure is performed in patients with ascites for diagnostic and/or therapeutic reasons. The procedure can be done with or without the use of ultrasound in assisting with the procedure. As ultrasound can detect as little as 100mL of fluid, it is considered the gold standard for diagnosing ascites. While educational resources on traditional nonultrasound-guided paracentesis are available, few video resources are available on the use of ultrasound for this procedure. The ultrasound resources that are currently available discuss scanning techniques but little information is included on the paracentesis procedure itself. As such, this video intends to bridge the existing gap by providing an educational resource that describes paracentesis in a more comprehensive manner, including the use of ultrasound in guiding the procedure. Specifically, this video covers the steps necessary for the performance of the paracentesis. Three techniques are described in the video: blind, static, and dynamic ultrasound technique. The use of two types of ultrasound devices are illustrated in the video in order to maximize the chance that viewers of the video can translate the steps for the use of an ultrasound to the device from their own institution. The video also covers indications and contradictions for performing the procedure, patient consent, patient preparation and positioning, performing the initial scan, required equipment, preprocedure time out, equipment set-up and preparation, sterilization and draping, ultrasound probe set-up, procedure, and aftercare.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.013 |
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".