MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W198353504 · doi:10.1155/2012/541751

An Audit of Pain Management Following Pediatric Day Surgery at British Columbia Children’s Hospital

2012· article· en· W198353504 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Serena Shum, Joanne Lim, Trish Page, Elizabeth A. Lamb, Jennifer Gow, J. Mark Ansermino, Gillian Lauder

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Research and Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineAuditPain managementTelephone interviewPostoperative painProspective cohort studyMedical recordEmergency medicinePhysical therapyAnesthesiaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A prospective audit of 225 children was conducted to evaluate current pain management strategies both in-hospital and at home following day surgery at British Columbia Children's Hospital (Vancouver, British Columbia). Anesthetic, postanesthetic care unit and surgical day care unit records were collected to generate in-hospital data. A telephone questionnaire was administered 48 h postdischarge for at home data. Pain reports and scores were significantly higher (P<0.01) at home compared with in-hospital. Children undergoing certain procedures were more likely to experience significant pain. Although good pain control was commonly achieved after surgery, improvements may be possible by increasing the use of multimodal analgesia, providing standardized written discharge instructions and using surgery-specific pediatric analgesia guidelines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations50
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain Research and ManagementSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207