MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387965304 · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000004815

Baseline Gastric Volume in Fasting Diabetic Patients Is Not Higher than That in Nondiabetic Patients: A Cross-sectional Noninferiority Study

2023· article· en· W4387965304 on OpenAlexaff
Anahi Perlas, Maggie Z. X. Xiao, George Tomlinson, Binu Jacob, Sara Abdullah, Richelle Kruisselbrink, Vincent Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEnhanced Recovery After Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityUniversity of AlbertaToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusGlycemicPreoperative fastingStomachPerioperativeSupine positionInternal medicineProspective cohort studyGastroenterologySurgeryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The physiology of diabetes mellitus can increase the risk of perioperative aspiration, but there is limited and contradictory evidence on the incidence of "full stomach" in fasting diabetic patients. The aim of this study is to assess the baseline gastric content (using gastric ultrasound) in diabetic and nondiabetic patients scheduled for elective surgery who have followed standard preoperative fasting instructions. METHODS: This was a prospective, noninferiority study of 180 patients (84 diabetic and 96 nondiabetic patients). Bedside ultrasound was used for qualitative and quantitative assessment of the gastric antrum in the supine and right lateral decubitus positions. Fasting gastric volume was estimated based on the cross-sectional area of the gastric antrum and a validated model. The hypothesis was that diabetic patients would not have a higher baseline fasting gastric volume compared to nondiabetic patients, with a noninferiority margin of 0.4 ml/kg. Secondary aims included the comparison of the incidence of full stomach (solid content or more than 1.5 mL/kg of clear fluid), estimation of the 95th percentile of the gastric volume distribution in both groups, and examination of the association between gastric volume, glycemic control, and diabetic comorbidities. RESULTS: The baseline gastric volume was not higher in diabetic patients (0.81 ± 0.61 ml/kg) compared to nondiabetic patients (0.87 ± 0.53 ml/kg) with a mean difference of -0.07 ml/kg (95% CI, -0.24 to 0.10 ml/kg). A total of 13 (15.5%) diabetic and 11 (11.5%) nondiabetic patients presented more than 1.5 ml/kg of gastric volume (95% CI for difference, -7.1 to 15.2%). There was little correlation between the gastric volume and either the time since diagnosis or HbA1C. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that the baseline gastric volume in diabetic patients who have followed standard fasting instructions is not higher than that in nondiabetic patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryFrench-language works237,207