MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410122227 · doi:10.24908/pocusj.v10i01.17785

The Utilization of Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) for the Confirmation of Gastric and Post-Pyloric Feeding Tube Placement in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

2025· article· en· W4410122227 on OpenAlex
Alonso Marron, Michael Wolf, Marla C. Levine, Jeremy S. Boyd, Marta Hernanz‐Schulman

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 · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePoint of care ultrasoundFeeding tubeEnteral administrationRadiographyAbdomenIntensive care unitUltrasoundProspective cohort studyPoint-of-care testingParenteral nutritionEmergency medicineRadiologySurgeryIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to investigate the role of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) as an alternative imaging modality to confirm the location of gastric and post-pyloric feeding tubes in patients admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). This was a prospective descriptive study performed at a tertiary care children's hospital. Patients from birth to 17 years of age in whom the medical team placed a temporary enteral feeding tube were eligible for enrollment. The study physician, who was blinded to the radiographic findings, performed a POCUS study of the abdomen. An abdominal radiograph was obtained to confirm the placement in all patients. A total of 13 patients were enrolled, and 14 abdominal POCUS exams were completed. POCUS accurately identified the location of the enteral feeding tube in 10 of the 14 cases. POCUS had a sensitivity and specificity of 85.7% and 57.1%, respectively, in identifying gastric tubes. It had a sensitivity and specificity of 66.7% and 87.5%, respectively, in identifying post-pyloric tubes. No adverse events were reported. This study showed that POCUS had moderate sensitivity and specificity and was, overall, safe. Further studies can assess the level of training needed for improvement in accuracy, and larger studies can help support the findings of this data that POCUS is a safe and accurate alternative to radiographs for enteral feeding tube placement confirmation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.297 · 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