The effect of preoperative anxiety and ovarian stimulation on gastric antrum size: a prospective observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND: Pulmonary aspiration is a potentially lethal perioperative complication related to gastric size and contents. Several perioperative factors are believed to increase gastric size, while others are less studied. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effect of anxiety, hormone-induced ovarian stimulation, and prolonged face mask ventilation (FMV) on gastric size via measuring antral cross-sectional area (CSA) using ultrasound.METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted in Rabin Medical Center, Israel. We recruited 49 female patients undergoing hormone-induced ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval for in-vitro fertilization. Preoperatively, they ranked anxiety level on a visual numeric anxiety score (VNS). In the operation room, pre-and postoperative gastric ultrasound examinations were performed. Anesthesia was induced intravenously, followed by FMV with a peak inspiratory pressure of 15 cm H2O.RESULTS: There was no substantial correlation between pre-operative VNS anxiety and antral CSA (p=0.697). Moreover, the number of follicles, blood estradiol, and progesterone levels did not correlate with antral CSA (p=0.590, p=0.104, and p=0.511, respectively). The median duration of FMV was 13 minutes [IQR 18 to 8.5] and did not correlate with the antral CSA delta (p=0.312).CONCLUSIONS: Neither preoperative anxiety nor extensive ovarian stimulation affects gastric size. Moreover, prolonged FMV with a peak inspiratory pressure of 15 cm H2O did not increase the gastric size by insufflation. These findings add to a growing body of literature on this topic. Furthermore, it provides new evidence that FMV is still safe even in a relatively short procedure.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration number, NCT04833530; Registration date, 06/04/2021).
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".