MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242447793 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013809

Preoperative fasting for prevention of perioperative complications in children

2020· article· en· W4242447793 on OpenAlexaff
Yvgeniy Oparin, Dena Zeraatkar, Harsha Shanthanna, Shahrzad Motaghi, Rachel Couban, Deepa Kattail, James Paul, Behnam Sadeghirad, Lawrence Mbuagbaw

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEnhanced Recovery After Surgery
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeComorbidityPreoperative fastingAspiration pneumoniaPneumoniaAnesthesiaPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: The objective of this review is to assess the effects of various preoperative fasting regimens (i.e. the duration of fasting from liquids and solids and the type and volume of permitted intake) on perioperative complications, including aspiration, aspiration‐related morbidity (e.g. aspiration pneumonia), and mortality in children undergoing general anaesthesia. We will also assess the effect of preoperative fasting regimens on other perioperative outcomes and complications, including length of hospital stay, risk of unplanned intubation and intensive care unit (ICU) admission, risk of unplanned oxygen administration, risk of unplanned admission, thirst, hunger, pain, risk of vomiting, and anxiety. We will also use subgroup analyses to assess whether the risk of perioperative complications with various preoperative fasting regimens differ for children with a comorbidity (e.g. obesity, diabetes, respiratory, or digestive) or for children of different ages (e.g. infants, children, adolescents).

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryFrench-language works237,207