Early Neurodevelopmental Outcomes Following Exposure to General Anesthesia in Infancy: EGAIN, a Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: General anesthesia (GA) is known to worsen neural outcomes in animals, but human research assessing early-life GA exposure and neurodevelopment show inconsistent findings. We investigated the effects of a single GA exposure for minor surgery on the neurodevelopment of healthy children at multiple time-points, using clinical assessments along with behavioral and neurophysiological measures rarely used in human research. METHODS: GA-exposed children were a prospective cohort of 250 full-term, healthy infants who underwent GA for minor surgery before 15 months. Nonexposed children were from a separate cohort of similar age, sex, ethnicity, and maternal education. In both cohorts, clinical measures (Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development-III [BSID-III] and Child Behavior Checklist [CBCL1½-5]) were assessed at 24 months, and experimental tests (memory and attentional) and neurophysiology (event-related potentials) at 6 and 18 months. RESULTS: At 24 months, there were no differences between GA-exposed and nonexposed children in the cognitive, language, motor, and socioemotional domains of the BSDI-III; however, GA-exposed children had poorer parental-reported scores in BSID-III general adaptability (94.2 vs. 99.0 [mean difference, 4.77; 97.3% confidence interval, -9.29, -0.24]; P =0.020) and poorer internalizing behavior scores on CBCL1½-5 (52.8 vs. 49.4 [mean difference, 3.35; 97.3% confidence interval, 0.15-6.55]; P =0.021). For experimental measures, GA-exposed children showed differences in 4 tests at 6 and 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: GA-exposed children did not differ from unexposed children in cognitive, language or motor outcomes at 24 months, but exhibited poorer parent-reported behavior scores. Differences in infant behavior and neurophysiology were detected at 6 and 18 months. Neurophysiological assessments may complement clinically relevant assessments to provide greater insights into neurodevelopment following early GA exposure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".