Ambulatory anesthesia and the lack of consensus among Canadian pediatric anesthesiologists: a survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the current selection criteria for outpatient surgery in children among Canadian pediatric anesthesiologists. METHODS: A survey specifying 20 different medical situations was sent to 120 members of the Canadian Pediatric Anesthesia Society. Members were asked to indicate if they agreed or refused to provide anesthesia for children with one or more clinical condition or symptoms. Consensus was defined as a >70% majority opinion. RESULTS: Sixty-four pediatric anesthesiologists replied (53.3%). For 13 conditions there was no consensus among members. Seven scenarios resulted in a consensus of either providing or not providing anesthesia in an outpatient setting. The majority of members would agree to provide anesthesia for the following scenarios: (i) an asymptomatic child with recurrent otitis media, rectal temperature of 38 degrees C; (ii) the same child with chronic nasal discharge for bilateral myringotomy and tube placement; (iii) an asymptomatic child with sickle-cell disease (SCD) for cast change; (iv) an asymptomatic child with asthma and fever for bilateral myringotomy and tube placement (BMT); (v) a morbidly obese child with congested nose for BMT; and (vi) a child with well controlled insulin dependent diabetes mellitus for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Most members would refuse to provide outpatient anesthesia in an asymptomatic child with SCD for tonsillectomy. CONCLUSION: Further studies are needed to establish evidence-based medicine to support guidelines that would allow one to select children safely for ambulatory surgery.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".