Perioperative pain management and opioid‐reduction in head and neck endocrine surgery: An American Head and Neck Society Endocrine Surgery Section consensus statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This American Head and Neck Society (AHNS) consensus statement focuses on evidence-based comprehensive pain management practices for thyroid and parathyroid surgery. Overutilization of opioids for postoperative pain management is a major contributing factor to the opioid addiction epidemic however evidence-based guidelines for pain management after routine head and neck endocrine procedures are lacking. METHODS: An expert panel was convened from the membership of the AHNS, its Endocrine Surgical Section, and ThyCa. An extensive literature review was performed, and recommendations addressing several pain management subtopics were constructed based on best available evidence. A modified Delphi survey was then utilized to evaluate group consensus of these statements. CONCLUSIONS: This expert consensus provides evidence-based recommendations for effective postoperative pain management following head and neck endocrine procedures with a focus on limiting unnecessary use of opioid analgesics.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".