Pediatric oncology sedation trial (POST): A double‐blind randomized study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence to support the use of an anti-emetic with the administration of intra-thecal chemotherapy. Nor is there adequate clarity on analgesic strategies for children with cancer undergoing painful procedures. PROCEDURES: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, factorial trial was performed in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia undergoing combined bone marrow aspirations and lumbar punctures during maintenance therapy. The study was designed to measure the effect of adding ondansetron and fentanyl to a standard combination of midazolam and propofol. RESULTS: During the first 12 hr following the procedures, patients experienced significantly less vomiting/retching and less disruption of activity while receiving ondansetron, and recorded significantly lower pain scores while receiving fentanyl. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that the addition of an analgesic (fentanyl) and an anti-emetic (ondansetron) to the combination of a sedative (midazolam) and an anesthetic (propofol) is of measurable benefit in children who undergo procedures that are painful and risk the consequence of nausea and vomiting.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".