Intravenous catheterization and the clinical setting do not impact appetite sensations in children (393.4)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the clinical setting children report intravenous procedures as distressing but it is unknown if they affect their appetite sensations. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of setting and venous blood draws on subjective appetite (SA) and physical comfort (PC) in children. Methods: In two separate studies, 9‐14 y children (5th‐85th BMI percentile) consumed a snack of either yogurt or cookies in random order. One study was conducted non‐invasively at a university laboratory (n=23) and another study was conducted at the hospital (n=11) where children had an intravenous catheter inserted for repeated blood draws over 2 h. In both studies, food intake (FI) was measured at an ad libitum meal 120 min after the snack. SA and PC were measured at 0, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120 and 145 min using visual analogue scale questionnaires. Results: There was no difference between settings for the baseline SA and PC scores. There was an effect of time, but not setting, on two hour average appetite (P<0.01). Children had slightly higher PC scores (12%) in the clinical setting (P<0.01) but PC did not correlate with SA scores or FI in any setting. PC scores were high (0‐100 mm scale) in both the clinical setting (82 mm ± 1.8) and university setting (72 mm ± 1.2) indicating a lack of effect of setting and catheterization on appetite sensations. Conclusion: Venous blood draws performed in the clinical setting do not affect subjective appetite sensations following snacks in children. Grant Funding Source : Supported by Dairy Farmers of Canada
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".