Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava and Central Venous Feeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dangers of left-sided superior vena cava have received insufficient attention in the literature on central venous catheterisation. Three infants have recently been encountered with this anomaly in a series of 160 central venous catheterisations. This is much higher than the reported incidence of the anomaly. Certain safeguards are suggested when it is encountered. Zusammenfassung Die Literatur zur zentralvenösen Katheterisierung hat bisher den Gefahren einer linksseitigen oberen Hohlvene zu wenig Beachtung geschenkt. Diese Anomalie ist von den Verfassern an drei Kleinkindern von insgesamt 160 zentralvenösen Katheterisierungen beobachtet worden. Der Häufigkeitsgrad dieser Erscheinung ist demnach bedeutend höher als in der Literatur angegeben. Gewisse Sicherheitsvorkehrungen werden beim Auftreten dieser Anomalie empfohlen.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".