Long‐term IV access in paediatrics ‐ why, what, where, who and how
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Establishment of long-term central venous access imposes the risk of procedural adverse events (air embolism, pneumothorax, accidental arterial cannulation of the great vessels, tricuspid valve damage and cardiac tamponade) as well as the risk of increased morbidity and mortality due to catheter related blood stream infections, vessel stenosis, deep vein thrombosis and the often high risk anaesthetic management of syndromic children. This narrative review aims to provide a historical and clinical background for the development and use of CVADs (central venous access devices), origin and management of the most common complications (catheter related thrombosis, infections and persistent withdrawal occlusion) and present the reader with an update on the "why, what, where, who and how" in paediatric long-term central venous access. Finally, we will present the reader with a clinical method for applying a retrograde inserted tunnelled and cuffed catheter using the left brachiocephalic vein access.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".