Use of Anesthesia for Imaging Studies and Interventional Procedures in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ongoing investigation from the Pediatric Anesthesia NeuroDevelopment Assessment (PANDA) study hopes to examine the long-term effect on cognitive and language development of a single anesthetic exposure in children undergoing inguinal hernia repair. The fifth PANDA Symposium, held in April 2016, continued the mission of previous symposia to examine evidence from basic science and clinical studies on potential neurotoxic effects of anesthetics on developing brain. At the 2016 Symposium, a panel of specialists from nonsurgical pediatric disciplines including anesthesiology, radiology, neurology, gastroenterology, oncology, cardiology, and critical care reviewed use of anesthesia in their practices, including how concern over possible neurodevelopmental effects of early childhood anesthetic exposure has changed discussion with patients and families regarding risks and benefits of imaging studies and interventional procedures involving sedation or anesthesia. This paper summarizes presentations from nonsurgical pediatric specialists at the 2016 PANDA Symposium.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".