35 DUNN method versus weight based formulae to estimate umbilical arterial and venous catheters position
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Umbilical arterial catheters (UAC) and umbilical venous catheters (UVC) are frequently used in infants admitted to neonatal intensive care units (NICU). Dunn method (DM) was used in our NICU to calculate length of insertion of UAC/UVC until July 2018, before the adoption of the weight-based formulae (WBF). Objectives Our primary objective was to compare both methods in regards to correct position of UAC/UVC on first attempt. As a secondary objective we assessed the correlation between the tip position of catheters in anteroposterior radiographies (APR) and lateral radiographies (LatR). Design/Methods This is a retrospective cohort study of infants with UAC/UVC inserted in the NICU from 2017-2019. Charts were reviewed for demographic data and catheters position in APR and LatR. The position was considered appropriate if the tip was between thoracic vertebral level (Th)6 and Th9 on APR for UAC and at Th8-Th9 on APR for UVC. Length of insertion of catheters was calculated via DM in one group and WBF in the other. Secondarily, we compared position of catheters on APR and LatR. For statistical analysis we used t student test for continuous data, Chi square test for categorical data and Pearson r for coefficient of correlation(r). Results Among 462 infants with UAC/UVC placed, demographic characteristics in both groups were similar (Table 1). There was a good correlation between APR and LatR for the assessment of UVC and UAC position. Appropriate position on first attempt for UAC was 60% (49/82) with Dunn method and 66% (74/112) with WBF (p=0.67). Appropriate position on first attempt in UVC insertion beyond liver was 36% (46/127) using Dunn method and 43% (67/157) with WBF (p=0.47). Rate of low positioned UVC was significantly lower using WBF compared to Dunn method: 3%(5/157) vs 9% (11/127), (p=0.04). Position of catheters on APR and LatR were well correlated for UVC (n=146, r=0.87, p<0.001) and UAC (n=62, r=0.82, p<0.001). Conclusion No difference was observed for appropriate position of UAC and UVC on first attempt using DM versus WBF. There was significantly less low positioned UVCs with WBF.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".