Baseline Gastric Volume in Fasting Diabetic Patients Is Not Higher than That in Nondiabetic Patients: A Cross-sectional Noninferiority Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".