Comparison of neck ultrasonography with a pH meter to confirm correct position of nasogastric tube
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare pH meter and neck ultrasonograph for evaluation of nasogastric tube (NGT) position. METHODS: A total of 35 adult patients who required NGT insertion were included. The NGT was inserted by an anesthetist after endotracheal intubation, and the transducer was placed transversely on the neck, just superior to the suprasternal notch. The passage of the NGT in the esophagus was evaluated by a sonographer, and the stomach was emptied by nasogastric suction. Secretion from inside the NGT was analyzed using a pH meter. The tip of the NGT was accepted as being in the stomach if the pH measured between 1 and 5. Neck ultrasonography was compared with the pH meter analysis for confirmation of NGT position. RESULTS: Ultrasonography was highly sensitive (100% (95% CI 89.6-100%) and specific (97.2% (95% CI 85.4-99.5%) for evaluation of NGT position. The specificity for the pH meter was 100% (95% CI 16.6-100%), while the sensitivity was 76.5% (95% CI 58.8-89.2%). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that neck ultrasonography is more sensitive than the pH meter for confirmation of NGT position.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".