Parental Presence during Induction of Anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether parental presence during induction of anesthesia (PPIA) is associated with parental physiologic and behavioral manifestations of stress. METHODS: Children and their parents (N = 80) were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) PPIA; (2) PPIA plus 0.5 mg/kg oral midazolam; and (3) control (no PPIA or midazolam). The effect of the group assignment on parental heart rate (HR), parental blood pressure, and parental skin conductance level (SCL) were assessed. Both parental HR and parental SCL were monitored continually. Anxiety of the parent and child was also assessed. RESULTS: Parental HR increased from baseline until the induction of anesthesia (P = 0.001). A group-by-time effect ( P= 0.005) was also found. That is, throughout the induction period there were several time points at which parents in the two PPIA groups had a significantly higher HR than did parents in the control group (P < 0.05). Similarly, SCL was found to increase in all parents from baseline until induction of anesthesia (P = 0.001). Significant group differences in SCL changes over time were found as well (P = 0.009). State anxiety and blood pressure following induction of anesthesia did not differ significantly between groups ( P= nonsignificant). Examination of parental Holter data revealed no rhythm abnormalities and no electrocardiogram changes indicating ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found that PPIA is associated with increased parental HR and SCL. However, no increased incidence of electrocardiogram abnormalities were found in parents present during induction of anesthesia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".