A Survey of Orthopedic Surgeons??? Attitudes and Knowledge Regarding Regional Anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: We conducted a survey to explore the surgical attitudes and preferences regarding regional anesthesia among Canadian orthopedic surgeons. Surveys were returned by 468 (61%) of 768 surgeons. Forty-eight percent of respondents directed their patients' choice of anesthetic. Forty percent of surgeons directed their patients to choose regional anesthesia. The principal reasons for favoring regional anesthesia were less postoperative pain (32%), decreased nausea and vomiting (12%), and safety (14%). Reasons for not favoring regional anesthesia were delays in the induction of anesthesia (43%) and an unpredictable success rate (12%). This survey suggests that orthopedic surgeons are supportive of regional anesthesia. Barriers to increased popularity include perceived delays and unreliability. IMPLICATIONS: Orthopedic surgeons understand the benefits of and are supportive of the use of regional anesthesia in their practices. Barriers to increased popularity include perceived operating room delays and lack of reliability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".