MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407697781 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000007423

Changing Times: Clear Liquids for Pediatric Patients

2025· article· en· W4407697781 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Naveen Nathan

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical and Chemical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Though it is commonly believed that two hours of fasting is required to minimize the risk of regurgitation and aspiration of gastric contents for clear liquids, there may be well defined benefits for shortening this time in the pediatric population. These include motre optimal hydration status, higher success rate of intravenous cannulation, decreased hypotension under anesthesia, and decreased parental and patient distress preoperatively. In fact, many society guidelines globally have shifted to a 1-hour fasting limit for clear liquids for pediatric patients. Notable organizations includes the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, the Association of Paediatric Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland, the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC), L’Association Des Anesthésistes‐Réanimateurs Pédiatriques d’Expression Française, and the Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society. Dalal and colleagues surveyed members of PALC (Pediatric Anesthesia Leadership Council). Results from their survey indicate that there is a growing trend towards reducing fasting times for clear liquids in children presenting for surgery. This infographic summarizes their findings. The reader is strongly encouraged to review the cited article for a more thorough appreciation of this topic.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicBiomedical and Chemical ResearchFrench-language works237,207