Safe perioperative pediatric care around the world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric anesthesia is no longer a small subspecialty, but an important sector where developments in the new century have brought effective and safe management to children in the perioperative period. Unfortunately, what is common daily practice in the high-income countries with all the guidelines, checklists, instruments, and dedicated pediatric anesthesiologists is often only a dream in the low- and middle-income countries where the basic anesthesia services for improving the high rate of morbidity and mortality still are lacking. Anesthesia given by nonphysicians, with no monitoring, lack of elementary supplies, poor control of infections and hemorrhage, and no water or electricity are very often the 'usual' conditions. The World Health Organization is working hard to offer teams, basic equipments, and teaching and what is needed to offer children of these countries the same opportunities given in the industrialized countries. Other projects such as the Lifebox Project have a similar aim. This paper outlines some of what organizations are doing around the world, with different strategies all having the same target: safe pediatric anesthesia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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".