Neonatal Catheter and Tube Placement and Radiographic Assessment Statistics in Relation to Important Anatomic Landmarks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Neonatal catheters and tubes are commonly used for monitoring and support for intensive care and must be correctly positioned to avoid complications. Position assessment is routinely done by radiography. The objective of this study is to characterize neonatal catheter and tube placement in terms of the proportion of those devices that are malpositioned. STUDY DESIGN: Using an institutional dataset of 723 chest/abdominal radiographs of neonatal intensive care unit (ICU) patients (all within 60 days of birth), we assessed the proportion of catheters that are malpositioned. Many radiographs contained multiple catheter types. Umbilical venous catheters (UVCs; 448 radiographs), umbilical arterial catheters (UACs; 259 radiographs), endotracheal tubes (ETTs; 451 radiographs), and nasogastric tubes (NGTs; 603 radiographs) were included in our analysis. RESULTS: UVCs were malpositioned in 90% of radiographs, while UACs were malpositioned in 36%, ETTs in 30%, and NGTs in just 5%. The most common locations in which UVCs were malpositioned were in the right atrium (31%) and umbilical vein (21%), and for UACs the most common malpositioned tip location was the aortic arch (8%). For the remaining tubes, 5% of ETTs were found to be in the right main bronchus and 4% of NGTs were found in the esophagus. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of catheters and tubes are malpositioned, suggesting that optimizing methods of catheter placement and assessment ought to be areas of focus for future work. KEY POINTS: · Neonatal catheters are frequently malpositioned.. · Most umbilical venous catheters need readjustment.. · X-ray and ultrasound are important for assessment.. · Catheter tips should be assessed in all X-rays..
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".