MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803038225 · doi:10.1097/nan.0000000000000279

A Standard Push-Pull Protocol for Waste-Free Sampling in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

2018· article· en· W2803038225 on OpenAlexaff
Clare McBride, Suzan R. Miller-Hoover, J. Proudfoot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Infusion Nursing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsMiller Group (Canada)
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsProtocol (science)MedicineBlood samplingSampling (signal processing)Central venous catheterPediatric intensive care unitIntensive care unitIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineCatheterSurgeryComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blood sampling is a major source of blood loss in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Blood-sparing sampling techniques such as the push-pull method can significantly reduce sampling-related blood loss and protect patients from anemia and blood transfusions. The push-pull method is supported by research evidence for central venous catheter (CVC) sampling, but research protocols differ and not all CVCs and laboratory tests have been studied. A standard push-pull protocol for the PICU was developed, implemented, and evaluated in this evidence-based practice project. Results show that the protocol can be used safely and reliably as a standard waste-free sampling method in the PICU.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Infusion NursingSame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207