Review: evidence is lacking that adults given fluids 1.5 to 3 hours preoperatively have greater risks of aspiration or regurgitation than those given a standard fast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brady M, Kinn S, Stuart P. Preoperative fasting for adults to prevent perioperative complications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;(4):CD004423 (latest version 27 Aug 2003). Q In adults, what are the effects of different preoperative fasting regimens (duration, type, and volume of permitted intake) on perioperative complications and patient wellbeing? ### ![Graphic][1]</img>Data sources: Medline (1966 to August 2003), CINAHL (1982 to August 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (second quarter, 2003), and the UK National Research Register (August 2003); bibliographies of relevant studies and conference proceedings; and experts. ### ![Graphic][2]</img>Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared the effects of different preoperative fasting regimens in terms of duration of fast, type of permitted intake, and volume of permitted intake before general anaesthesia; included adults ⩾18 years of age; and reported postoperative complications. Studies of healthy patients having general anaesthesia or those at high risk of regurgitation or aspiration during anaesthesia (ie, patients who were pregnant, postpartum, obese, elderly, or had gastric disorders) were included. A standard fast was defined as nil by mouth from … [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [2]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".