Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purposes of this review are to summarize the advantages and limitations of ultrasound-guided pain interventions, and to illustrate those interventions with peripheral, axial and musculoskeletal pain procedures. RECENT FINDINGS: With the capability of locating the interfascial plane, ultrasonography has led to the emergence of a series of plane blocks for the thoracoabdominal region in the recent decade.Ultrasonography for musculoskeletal procedures has been of growing interest because of the major advantage of direct visualization and scanning of various soft tissues and real-time spread in the injectate, thereby enhancing precision and efficacy, reducing risk of trauma and avoidance of radiation. For spine and intra-articular structures, ultrasonography is complicated by the bony shadow artefact and often deep location of the structure, making acquisition of ultrasound image challenging. Despite these difficulties, there is growing interest in applying ultrasonography for cervical spine and sacroiliac joint procedures. SUMMARY: Pain intervention under ultrasound guidance is particularly valuable in peripheral and musculoskeletal procedures. There is growing interest of its application in cervical spine and sacroiliac joint. More outcome studies are required in the future to make ultrasound-guided pain intervention as the established procedure.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".