MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042996701 · doi:10.1111/anae.12290

Speed of spinal vs general anaesthesia for category‐1 caesarean section: a simulation and clinical observation‐based study

2013· article· en· W2042996701 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsB.C. Women's Hospital & Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCaesarean sectionSpinal anesthesiaAnesthesiaGeneral anaesthesiaIntrathecalRegional anaesthesiaElective caesarean sectionSurgeryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Controversy exists as to whether effective spinal anaesthesia can be achieved as quickly as general anaesthesia for a category-1 caesarean section. Sixteen consultants and three fellows in obstetric anaesthesia were timed performing spinal and general anaesthesia for category-1 caesarean section on a simulator. The simulation time commenced upon entry of the anaesthetist into the operating theatre and finished for the spinal anaesthetic at the end of intrathecal injection and for the general anaesthetic when the anaesthetist was happy for surgery to start. In the second clinical part of the study, the time from intrathecal administration to 'adequate surgical anaesthesia' (defined as adequate for start of a category-1 caesarean section) was estimated in 100 elective (category-4) caesarean sections. The median (IQR [range]) times (min:s) for spinal procedure, onset of spinal block and general anaesthesia were 2:56 (2:32-3:32 [1:22-3:50]), 5:56 (4:23-7:39 [2:9-13:32]) and 1:56 (1:39-2:9 [1:13-3:12]), respectively. The limiting factor in urgent spinal anaesthesia is the unpredictable time needed for adequate surgical block to develop.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it