Behavioral Analysis of Children’s Response to Induction of Anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is documented that children experience distress at anesthesia induction, but little is known about the prevalence of specific behaviors exhibited by children. METHOD: Digital audiovisual recordings of 293 children undergoing outpatient elective surgery were coded using Observer XT software and the validated Revised Perioperative Child-Adult Medical Procedure Interaction Scale. Multiple pass second-by-second data recording was used to capture children's behaviors across phases of anesthesia induction. RESULTS: More than 40% of children aged 2-10 yr displayed some distress behavior during induction with 17% of these children displaying significant distress and more than 30% of children resisting anesthesiologists during induction. Children's distress and nondistress behaviors displayed four profiles over the course of anesthesia induction: Acute Distress, Anticipatory Distress, Early Regulating Behaviors, and Engagement with Procedure. Older children had higher scores on early regulating and engagement profiles whereas younger children had higher scores on Acute Distress. There were no differences across age in children's Anticipatory Distress. Construct validity of behavior profiles was supported via correlations of profile score (overall and on the walk to the operating room) with a validated assessment of children's anxiety at induction. CONCLUSIONS: Children undergoing anesthesia display a range of distress and nondistress behaviors. A group of behaviors was identified that, when displayed on the walk to the operating room, is associated with less distress at anesthesia induction. These data provide the first examination of potentially regulating behaviors of children, but more detailed sequential analysis is required to validate specific functions of these behaviors.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".