Effect of Catheter Gauge on the Success of Intravenous Catheter Placement by Veterinary Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of this study were to determine if senior veterinary students find it easier to place a smaller-bore catheter, and to relate patient variables with student success in catheter placement. For dogs between 10 kg and 20 kg, the catheter size options were 20 gauge or 22 gauge. For dogs larger than 20 kg, the catheter size options were 18 gauge or 20 gauge. Variables recorded included time for catheter placement, number of catheterization attempts, number of catheters used, number of legs used, difficulty of catheterization, student success, and patient characteristics including signalment, weight, body condition score, premedication drugs given, tentative diagnosis, and procedure. If the student could not place an IV catheter after three attempts, it was graded as a student catheter placement failure. For the 55 students participating in the study over 28 months, we recorded 192 individual catheterization attempts. In small patients, students were successful in 19/20 attempts with 22-gauge catheters and in 24/30 with 20-gauge catheters. In large patients, students were successful in 59/68 attempts with 20-gauge catheters and 61/74 with 18-gauge catheters. The overall success rate was 164/192 (85%). Students were more likely to be successful when attempting placement in those dogs receiving acepromazine than in those not receiving acepromazine (p=.02). There were no significant differences among any of the other variables for difficulty, placement time, number of attempts, or student success. Clinicians and educators may select a size catheter for the patient without concern for the effects on student catheter placement success.
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 | 0.005 | 0.065 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".