A Retrospective Comparative Study of Nerve-Stimulator Versus Ultrasound-Guided Supraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Regional blocks are the preferred choice in procedures like arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation involving the wrist or cubital fossa in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. We compared ultrasonography versus peripheral nerve stimulator-guided supraclavicular block to identify the non-inferior technique in these patients. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort analysis included 60 ESRD patients at the largest tertiary medical care centre of its kind in the world. Of these, 30 received the ultrasound-guided supraclavicular block (Group US), while the other 30 received it with the peripheral nerve stimulator technique (Group NS). Statistical analysis was done using GraphPad PRISM 10.0.0 software. Results: A significant difference was noted in the block execution time, onset and duration of sensory and motor block, and time to achieve a complete block in both groups. Conclusion: Ultrasound with nerve stimulator appears to be the technique of choice in ESRD patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".