Pulmonary aspiration in pediatric anesthetic practice in the <scp>UK</scp> : a prospective survey of specialist pediatric centers over a one‐year period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents is a potentially devastating complication of anesthesia. AIMS: This prospective multicenter survey of specialist pediatric centers in the UK set out to elucidate the incidence, risk factors, and the outcome of such events. The survey took place over a twelve-month period via a web-based secure reporting system. RESULTS: Over the twelve-month period, 24 cases of pulmonary aspiration were reported. Over that time period, there were 118 371 cases performed at the eleven pediatric centers. The overall incidence of pulmonary aspiration is therefore 1 in 4932 cases or 2 in 10 000 cases. Over that time period, there were 18 cases during elective surgery and six cases in nonelective/emergency surgery. The incidence of pulmonary aspiration in the elective situation is therefore 1 in 5076 cases or 2.0 per 10 000 cases. The incidence in emergency procedures is 1 in 4498 cases or 2.2 per 10 000 cases. The timing and severity of deterioration were recorded. In the study period, 8 of 24 cases did not deteriorate, 13 of 24 deteriorated with immediate effect, and the further 3 of 24 deteriorated within the next hour. The deterioration was mild in 11 patients requiring medical management only, and the deterioration was severe in five patients. Those five patients required ventilation for varying durations of time. All patients made a full recovery. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter survey of specialist pediatric centers in the UK over a one-year period reveals a low incidence of pulmonary aspiration in both elective and emergency cases. All patients made a full recovery.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".