Emergence from General Anaesthesia: Can We Discriminate between Emergence Delirium and Postoperative Pain?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unsettled behaviors characterize the early phase after general anaesthesia in the pediatric population in up to 80% of cases. Emergence delirium (ED) and acute pain are the two most relevant sources of this phenomenon. Research and clinical guidelines are difficult to implement due to the variability of the definition of unsettled behavior and measurement of the different components. The most probable incidence of ED is between 10% and 20%, and the potential risk factors could be summarized as young age, male gender, preoperative anxiety, baseline sleep-disordered breathing, volatile anaesthesia and ENT or ophthalmologic surgery. Self-reporting behavioral and observational scales are unable to reliably differentiate between ED and pain in a child who is not fully awake, making correct treatment choices difficult. This may lead to an undertreatment of pain in agitated children or to the overuse of opioids for self-limiting ED. This paper considers the current knowledge on the identification and treatment of ED and pain and provides a pragmatic approach for daily practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".