MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404446095 · doi:10.24908/pocus.v9i2.17366

Sonographic Detection of Iatrogenic Carotid Artery Guidewires During Internal Jugular Vein Catheterization

2024· article· en· W4404446095 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James H. Moak, Kristen Swann, Matthew Kongkatong, Jakob Ottenhoff, Christopher Thom

Bibliographic record

VenuePOCUS Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal jugular veinCarotid arteriesProspective cohort studyPredictive valueUltrasoundCommon carotid arteryInternal carotid arteryObservational studyGold standard (test)Jugular veinVeinRadiologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Visualization of the guidewire during internal jugular (IJ) vein catheterization by point of care ultrasound (POCUS) has been recommended for avoiding inadvertent carotid artery dilation. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of POCUS for identifying guidewires inappropriately placed in the carotid artery. Methods: This prospective, observational study involved emergency medicine (EM) residents with varying experience in guidewire visualization. Using an inanimate model, investigators placed guidewires randomly into the carotid artery or IJ vein. Residents, blinded to guidewire location, scanned the model and recorded their findings. The test performance of POCUS for arterially placed guidewires was evaluated through calculation of sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and overall accuracy, using investigator placement as the non-reference standard. Results: Twenty-five residents performed 51 observations. The test performance of POCUS for identifying arterially placed guidewires was sensitivity 95.0% (95%CI = 73.1-99.7%), specificity 96.8% (95%CI = 81.5-99.8%), NPV 96.8% (95%CI = 81.5-99.8%), and PPV 95.0% (95%CI = 73.1-99.7%). The overall accuracy was 96.1% (95%CI = 86.8-98.9%). Residents reported being very confident in their findings in 88.2% of all observations (95%CI = 76.6-94.5%), somewhat confident in 9.8% (95%CI = 4.3-21.0%), and not very confident in 2.0% (95%CI = 0.4-10.3%). No errors occurred among upper-level residents (post-graduate years 2-3) or those reporting >5 prior wire visualizations in live patients. Conclusions: This study is the first to demonstrate that physicians can easily identify misplaced guidewires located in the carotid artery with a high degree of accuracy using POCUS. We recommend routine scanning of the IJ vein and carotid artery prior to vessel dilation to reduce the likelihood of carotid artery injury.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePOCUS JournalSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207