Awareness during pediatric anesthesia – what is the position of European pediatric anesthesiologists?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of awareness in the pediatric population is reported as high as 1 : 125. An online survey was conducted about the current perception and practice of members of the British and French pediatric anesthesia societies regarding awareness during general anesthesia. METHODS: Following the approval of the executive committees of the British and French pediatric anesthesia societies, members with a valid email contact address were invited to participate in a web-based survey. Perceived risk factors, use of awareness monitors, pre- and postoperative discussions of awareness as well as personal experience were enquired. RESULTS: A total of 302 (51%) responded to the email survey. More than 60% indicated that awareness is a problem in pediatric anesthesia with the majority estimating an incidence of 1 : 1000. Almost half (49%) the respondents believe that awareness is age-dependent and 50% are not concerned below 1 month of age. More than 86% of respondents do not discuss the risk of awareness with the parents or actively look for awareness despite 27% reporting at least one episode in their practice. Intra-operative monitoring almost exclusively consists of clinical signs and endtidal anesthetic concentrations. Bispectral index (BIS) monitoring is routinely used by approximately 10% of the surveyed members. CONCLUSIONS: This survey demonstrates that European pediatric anesthesiologists perceive awareness as a major problem. However, none seems to address the issue openly or looks for its presence routinely. The vast majority of pediatric anesthesiologists rely almost exclusively on clinical monitoring and endtidal anesthetic concentrations for its detection.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".