EFETIVIDADE DO CATETER CENTRAL DE INSERÇÃO PERIFÉRICA NA TERAPIA INTRAVENOSA EM PEDIATRIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: comparar a efetividade entre o cateter central de inserção periférica (CCIP) e o cateter venoso central de curta permanência (CVC) na população pediátrica em unidades hospitalares. Método: revisão sistemática, com inclusão de artigos originais, disponíveis em completo, em português, inglês e espanhol, publicados entre os anos de 2010 e 2021. Foram utilizadas as bases de dados Pubmed/Medline, Embase, BVS, CINAHL, Web of Science e Clinical Trials, com os seguintes descritores: “pediatrics”; “adolescent”; “central venous catheters”; " catheterization, peripheral". Resultados: dos 412 estudos encontrados, seis foram selecionados. A qualidade dos estudos foi avaliada pelo protocolo Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Conclusão: o CCIP é efetivo como acesso venoso central na população pediátrica hospitalizada, visto que não houve diferenças significativas nas taxas de infecção de corrente sanguínea associada ao cateter central e tromboembolismo venoso comparado ao cateter venoso central.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".