Chest Tube Drainage Under Radiological Guidance for Pleural Effusion and Pneumothorax in a Tertiary Care University Teaching Hospital: Review of 51 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chest tube drainage under radiological guidance has been used with increasing frequency as a treatment option for pleural effusions and pneumothoraxes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and usefulness of pleural drainage under radiological guidance for pleural effusion and pneumothorax in a tertiary care university teaching hospital. METHODS: A retrospective study of cases of chest tube placement under radiological guidance over a 12-month period in a university hospital. RESULTS: Fifty-one percutaneous pigtail catheter drainage cases were reviewed (30 patients). Forty-six (90%) chest tubes were inserted as a first-line treatment. The overall success rate of radiological drainage was 88%. Specific success rates were 92%, 85% and 91% for loculated pleural effusion, pneumothorax and empyema, respectively. The complications were few and minor. CONCLUSIONS: Pigtail catheter insertion under radiological guidance is a useful procedure for the treatment of sterile pleural effusion, empyema and pneumothorax. This technique can be used as a first-line procedure in the majority of cases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".