The Champagne Tap: Time to Pop the Cork?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background A “champagne tap” is a lumbar puncture with no cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) red blood cells (RBCs). Clinicians disagree whether the absence of CSF white blood cells (WBCs) is also required. Aims As supervising providers frequently reward trainees after a champagne tap, we investigated how varying the definition impacted the frequency of trainee accolades. Materials & Methods We performed a secondary analysis of a retrospective cross‐sectional study of infants ≤60 days of age who had a CSF culture performed in the emergency department (ED) at one of 20 centers participating in a Pediatric Emergency Medicine Collaborative Research Committee (PEM CRC) endorsed study. Our primary outcomes were a champagne tap defined by either a CSF RBC count of 0 cells/mm3 regardless of CSF WBC count or both CSF RBC and WBC counts of 0 cells/mm3. Results Of the 23,618 eligible encounters, 20,358 (86.2%) had both a CSF RBC and WBC count obtained. Overall, 3,147 (13.3%) had a CSF RBC count of 0 cells/mm3 and 377 (1.6%) had both CSF WBC and RBC counts of 0 cells/mm3 (relative rate 8.35, 95% confidence interval 7.51 to 9.27). Conclusions In infants, a lumbar puncture with a CSF RBC count of 0 cells/mm3 regardless of the CSF WBC count occurred eight‐times more frequently than one with both CSF WBC and RBC counts of 0 cells/mm3. A broader champagne tap definition would allow more frequent recognition of procedural success, with the potential to foster a supportive community during medical training, potentially protecting against burnout.
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 | 0.003 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".