A prospective evaluation of tibial insertion sites for intraosseous needles to gain vascular access in Asian neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the appropriate intraosseous (IO) needle insertion site, optimal depth and success using a drill-assisted device (DAD) versus a manually inserted needle (MIN). METHODS: Computed tomography scans of neonatal cadavers were analyzed. Success was based on tibial needle tip placement within the marrow cavity and contrast media distribution. RESULTS: Nineteen cadavers (38 tibiae) were included. The overall success rate was comparable between DAD and MIN needles, but reduced in very-low birthweight (VLBW) infants. The insertion site was consistent across birth weight groups. Contrast leakage occurred overall in 15.8% and 41.7% in VLBW infants and was insignificantly greater in DAD versus MIN needles. Minimum and maximum puncture depth was adjusted for higher BW groups. CONCLUSION: IO needles should be placed 2 cm below and 1-2 cm medial to the tibial tuberosity. MIN needles are preferred to minimize leakage. IO depth should be modified by birth weight.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".