(F)utility of “routine” postprocedural chest radiograph after hemodialysis catheter (central venous catheter) insertion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A routine postprocedural chest radiograph had been a safe, checklist-based final step of the procedure, since the start of central venous catheter insertion for hemodialysis to check the position of the catheter tip and to rule out complications. However, the chest radiograph is a suboptimal method to rule out complications like pneumothorax and is not a reliable test to confirm its position. Although it is relatively inexpensive, it is labor-intensive and exposes patient to unnecessary radiation exposure, cost, and often results in delayed use of the catheter. Various studies question the value of a routine chest radiograph as a screening test to rule out the mechanical complications of catheter insertion. We, in this brief viewpoint, present evidence to support the futility of a routine postprocedural chest radiograph in majority of asymptomatic patients and support Choosing Wisely Initiative to avoid low-value studies. However, it should be considered under specific indications, as discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".