What Next After GAS and PANDA?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On April 16 and 17, 2016, the Fifth biennial Pediatric Anesthesia & Neurodevelopment Assessment (PANDA) symposium was convened at the Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital of New York at Columbia University Medical Center. During the symposium, experts in the fields of anesthesiology, neuropsychology, and epidemiology were convened in a small group session to determine the level of confidence in the current clinical evidence and the next steps in anesthetic neurotoxicity clinical research. Among the participants in the discussion, there remained a lack of consensus on whether anesthetic exposure causes long-term neurodevelopmental deficits in children based on the current evidence. This causal relationship between anesthesia exposure and neurodevelopmental deficit is difficult to establish using observational data, and current and future clinical trials are critical for answering this question. It was, however, recognized that the continuum of data that is seen in studies of other toxic environmental exposures, such as lead poisoning, has not been established in the anesthetic neurotoxicity literature, specifically regarding the timing of the exposure, the dose effects, contributing perioperative conditions, or vulnerable populations. As a result, these questions may need to be addressed in observational studies to guide future clinical trials.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".