MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413011595 · doi:10.1016/j.jaccas.2025.104424

What Is the Easiest Way to Remove a Knotted Swan-Ganz Catheter?

2025· article· en· W4413011595 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Goubran, Sean Dickie, Charles Yeggapan, Robert Bigsby, Kenza Rahmouni, Vincent Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC Case Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCatheterMedicineComputer scienceHistorySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Swan-Ganz catheters are routinely used for monitoring of critically ill patients. These catheters can become knotted during the process of insertion, which can pose a challenge for removal. CASE SUMMARY: A 63-year-old man underwent placement of a Swan-Ganz catheter, which was knotted and could not be removed. Ultimately, removal was achieved by tightening the knot in the Swan-Ganz catheter against the inlet of its sheath. The catheter and sheath were then pulled together out of the skin in a single motion. DISCUSSION: Multiple methods have been described to remove such knotted catheters although no consensus exists. TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: A knotted Swan-Ganz catheter can be safely removed by tightening the knot against the inlet of its sheath to reduce the knot size and then simply pulling the catheter and sheath together out of the skin.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC Case ReportsSame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207