MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142487298 · doi:10.1111/pan.12580

Emergence delirium, pain or both? a challenge for clinicians

2015· article· en· W2142487298 on OpenAlex
Marta Somaini, Emre Sahillioğlu, Chiara Marzorati, Federica Lovisari, Thomas Engelhardt

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

VenuePediatric Anesthesia · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFLACC scaleMedicineEmergence deliriumObservational studyTonsillectomyAdenoidectomyDeliriumCryingPain scalePain assessmentProspective cohort studyAnesthesiaPhysical therapyPain managementIntensive care medicinePostoperative painPsychiatrySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Children commonly display early postoperative negative behavior (e-PONB) after general anesthesia, which includes emergence delirium (ED), discomfort, temperament, and pain. However, it is often difficult for the caregiver to discriminate between various aspects of e-PONB. OBJECTIVE: This prospective observational study evaluates the possibility to distinguish between ED and pain in young children using validated pediatric observational scales in the early postoperative phase. METHODS: Following institutional approval and written consent, children undergoing elective adenoidectomy and/or tonsillectomy were enrolled. Following standardized anesthesia, two trained observers simultaneously evaluated children's behavior with the Paediatric Anaesthesia Emergence Delirium Scale (PAED) and with the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability scale (FLACC) at extubation, and at 5, 10, and 15 min. RESULTS: Of 150 children that completed the study, 32 (21%) had ED, 7 (5%) had pain, and 98 (65%) had simultaneously both ED and pain. The association of 'No eye contact', 'No purposeful action' and 'No awareness of surroundings' (ED1) had a sensitivity of 0.96 and a specificity of 0.80 (PPV 0.97, NPV 0.78) to identify ED. 'Inconsolability' and 'Restlessness' (ED2) had a sensitivity of 0.69 and a specificity of 0.88 (PPV 0.83 and NPV 0.78) to identify pain. CONCLUSION: It is difficult to differentiate between ED and pain using FLACC and PAED scores. 'No eye contact', 'No purposeful action', and 'No awareness of surroundings' significantly correlated with ED. 'Inconsolability' and 'Restlessness' are not reliable enough to identify pain or ED in the first 15 min after awakening.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.261 · 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