Inhalation induction using sevoflurane in children: the single‐breath vital capacity technique compared to the tidal volume technique*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The single-breath vital capacity technique is suitable for inhalation induction of anaesthesia, using sevoflurane in children aged > 5 years. The purpose of this randomised trial was to compare the single breath vital capacity technique with the conventional tidal volume technique. Seventy- three ASA 1 or 2 children were instructed during the pre-operative visit in the vital capacity technique. The main criterion measured was time to loss of the eyelash reflex. Induction was performed using a circle-absorber breathing circuit primed with sevoflurane 7% in 50% nitrous oxide/oxygen with 6 l.min(-1) fresh gas flow. Time required for induction, haemodynamic changes, airway tolerance and side-effects were recorded. The children's opinion on the technique used was scored using a visual analogue scale (0-100) and a Smiley scale (0-10). The time to loss of the eyelash reflex was found to be reduced in the vital capacity group compared to the tidal volume group. The time to central myosis, to achieve bispectral index values 60 and 40, haemodynamic changes, respiratory events and side-effect incidences were similar in both groups. However, we found that the vital capacity technique was preferred by the children to the tidal volume technique.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".