Experimental study of the POP technique: focus on the physical basis of the process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Central or peripheral vascular access devices have been in use for many decades. However, despite adequate care and maintenance, complete occlusion may occur, and its impact cannot be overlooked. A new procedure using a percussion technique has been published and referred as 'the POP technique'. METHODS: A hydrodynamic bench was used permitting both the recording of the movement of the piston with a fast camera and the pressure variations in the polyurethane and silicone catheters while connected to 2- and 3-piece syringes. RESULTS: The results are twofold. First the upward movement of the piston leads to the installation of a saturation vapour pressure in the body of the syringe. During this sequence, the clot is submitted to a force of aspiration. Then the release of the plunger leads to a pulse pressure whose dynamics and intensity are dependent of the types of syringes and catheters. CONCLUSIONS: The experiments bring to light the importance of practical features such as the orientation of the syringe and the nature of the polyurethane or silicone catheters. Then the analysis enables the definition of practical rules for safe practice of the POP technique. This study will impact clinicians as many may be tempted to use the technique in hope to resolve the occlusion safely, in a timely manner.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".