MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389097545 · doi:10.24908/pocus.v8i2.16265

Troubleshooting Paracentesis Using POCUS

2023· article· en· W4389097545 on OpenAlex
Angelina Voronina, Nachelle Aurelien, Edward Bergin, Paula Roy-Burman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePOCUS Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParacentesisMedicineAscitesTroubleshootingCatheterPoint of care ultrasoundSurgeryUltrasoundIntensive care medicineRadiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paracentesis is a procedure routinely performed at the bedside in the evaluation and management of ascites. While point of care ultrasound (POCUS) assistance during paracentesis is known to reduce the risk of procedure-related complications, intraprocedural POCUS to overcome commonly occurring issues, such as obstructed flow through the centesis catheter, remain poorly described. In this report, we present two cases in which bowel adhered to the catheter during paracentesis. POCUS was used in an attempt to restore flow. Based on our literature review and procedural experience, we propose an algorithm to surmount this routinely encountered problem.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.288 · 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