Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hebl et al. (1) found that the success rate of epidural analgesia and anesthesia in patients who have undergone dural puncture to be similar to that of patients who have undergone two previous epidural anesthetics. Those findings were different from an earlier report by Ong et al. (2), in which epidural analgesia was often impaired after dural puncture with and without subsequent blood patch. The contrary results may be explained by differences in patient groups and technical differences in identifying the epidural space. The patients of Ong et al. (2) were all parturients who had dural puncture with 16-gauge Tuohy needles. Seventy-one of the 87 patients for Hebl et al. (1) had dural puncture for spinal anesthesia. The spinal anesthesia was probably performed with finer needles. The mean ages of patients of Ong et al. (2) ranged from 22 to 27 years, whereas the mean ages of patients of Hebl et al. (1) ranged from 34 to 40 years. The most common technique for identification of the epidural space for Ong et al. (2) was by loss of resistance to air. Hebl et al. (1) used the saline loss of resistance technique. Further studies controlling the variations in the study patients and the loss of resistance techniques for identification of epidural space may explain the different observations in the two studies. Bill Ong MD
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".