MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249464588 · doi:10.1542/gr.45-3-32

Saline Lock and Continuous Infusion Peripheral IV Duration

2021· article· en· W4249464588 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAAP Grand Rounds · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTunneling and Rock Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSalineDuration (music)PeripheralLock (firearm)AnesthesiaInternal medicineMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Source: Yeung F, , Miller MR, , Ojha R, , et al. Saline-lock versus continuous infusion: maintaining peripheral intravenous catheter access in children. Hosp Pediatr. 2020;10(12):1038-1043; doi:10.1542/hpeds.2020-0137[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Investigators from Children’s Hospital, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada, conducted a prospective study to assess the effectiveness of 2 different techniques to maintain peripheral intravenous (PIV) patency in hospitalized children not requiring PIV fluids for hydration. Specifically, the investigators compared using a continuous infusion at a slow rate “to keep vein open” (TKO), or using a saline lock (SL). Study participants were patients, 0 to 17 years old, admitted to a tertiary care children’s hospital between September 2018 and February 2019 in whom a PIV was placed. During the first 3 months of the study, once fluids were no longer needed for patency, PIV patency … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DHosp%2BPediatr%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1542%252Fhpeds.2020-0137%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F33172866%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=hosppeds&resid=10/12/1038&atom=%2Faapgrand%2F45%2F3%2F32.atom

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAAP Grand RoundsSame topicTunneling and Rock MechanicsFrench-language works237,207