Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pediatric hypnosis has a useful role in pre-, peri-, and post-anesthesia to minimize anticipatory anxiety, and as adjunctive treatment to reduce and control pain. This article reviews the literature in the use of hypnosis in pediatric anesthesia to highlight its role and relevancy. BACKGROUND: Current research indicates there is an immediate and enduring impact, and long-term benefits of this child-centered intervention. Hypnosis can be included in presurgical consultations to establish cooperation and signals for increasing comfort and to address fears and provide suggestions for rapid recovery with changed expectations for the child's own benefit. Thus prepared, the child is in a heightened state of receptivity and statements and suggestions carry through to peri- and post-anesthesia, when hypnosis can help with extubation, reduce nausea, and ease recovery. METHOD: The Magic Glove is one hypno-anesthesia technique that simultaneously addresses pain and anxiety. The process of hypnosis requires training and supervised practice. CONCLUSION: Patients in hypnosis treatment conditions have less anxiety and shorter hospital stays and experience less long-term pain and discomfort than do patients in control conditions. There appears little reason not to provide hypnosis as an adjunctive treatment for pediatric patients undergoing 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".