Spinal Ultrasound Versus Palpation for Epidural Catheter Insertion in Labour: A Randomized-Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
( Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015 Jul;32(7):499–505) Ultrasound guidance has gained increasing acceptance among anesthesiologist as a means to improve the efficacy and safety of various procedures, including vascular access, peripheral nerve blockade, and neuraxial anesthesia. Although several studies have been published on the use of spinal ultrasound, a common limitation is that a single expert investigator or selected group of anesthesiologists performed the ultrasound scanning while an experienced or novice operator carried out the neuraxial technique, This may affect the generalizability of the existing data and raises the question of whether the same benefits would be observed if clinicians performed both the ultrasound scanning and the neuraxial procedure. This randomized-controlled trial investigated the impact of ultrasound usage on the ease of insertion of labor epidurals by a mixed group of trainees after they participated in a comprehensive teaching program on ultrasound assessment of the spine. The investigators hypothesized that the use of preprocedural spinal ultrasound would improve the ease of insertion of labor epidural catheters when compared with the conventional palpation technique.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".