MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994620472 · doi:10.1111/anae.14957

A randomised controlled trial of shoulder block vs. interscalene brachial plexus block for ventilatory function after shoulder arthroscopy

2019· article· en· W2994620472 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Rhyner, Kyle R. Kirkham, Camila Hirotsu, Alain Farron, Éric Albrecht

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsMedicineBrachial plexusArthroscopyAnesthesiaShoulder jointShoulder surgeryRandomized controlled trialSurgeryBrachial plexus block

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The shoulder block may impair ventilatory function and diaphragmatic movement less than the interscalene brachial plexus block. We randomly allocated 30 adults who underwent shoulder arthroscopy under general anaesthesia to ultrasound-guided shoulder block or interscalene block with 20 ml bupivacaine 0.5%. The primary outcome, rate of ultrasound-measured hemidiaphragmatic excursion < 25% of baseline 30 min after blockade, was reduced from 12/15 with brachial plexus block to 2/15 with shoulder block, a difference (95%CI) of 67% (40-93%), p < 0.001. The mean (SD) numeric rating scale pain scores at rest after shoulder block were higher than after interscalene block at two postoperative hours, 1.4 (1.2) vs. 0.3 (0.7), p = 0.02, but lower at 24 postoperative hours, 1.3 (1.3) vs. 3.4 (2.3), p = 0.008. Mean (SD) pain scores on movement in the shoulder and interscalene blocks were similar, with respective values of 1.9 (1.9) vs. 0.7 (1.2), p = 0.13 at two postoperative hours and 3.7 (2.3) vs. 5.3 (2.5), p = 0.41, at 24 postoperative hours.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207