Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This narrative review describes the current framework for informed consent discussions for regional anesthesia practice from an ethical and medicolegal stand point as the cornerstone of the patient-physician relationship and the respect for patient autonomy. Recent guidelines and position statements from anesthesia societies have emphasized the importance of these discussions and their appropriate documentation. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies have shown that patients want to know more about both common and benign, as well as rare but serious adverse events, as it relates to their anesthetic care. Several strategies have been recently recommended as a means to facilitate a meaningful consent discussion and proper documentation in the perioperative environment. SUMMARY: Defining the material risks of ultrasound-guided regional anesthetic procedures remains challenging, due in part to the difficulty in quantifying incidence rates of relatively rare events. However, well informed discussions are of great importance to support patient autonomy and lay a strong foundation for the patient-anesthesiologist relationship.
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 | 0.052 | 0.220 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.010 |
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".