Anxiolysis for laceration repair in children: study protocol for an open-label multicenter adaptive trial (ALICE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lacerations are the most common traumatic reason for children to visit an emergency department (ED), accounting for almost half of all procedures performed. Children experience considerable distress during laceration repair, despite routine application of local anesthetic. Pharmacologic anxiolysis may mitigate the negative practice of forcefully restraining a child, however, evidence for the most effective agent is lacking. We aim to determine the most effective anxiolytic agent for laceration repair in children. METHODS: This is a multicentre, phase III, three-arm, adaptive, randomized, open-label, trial. We will include children 2-12 years with a single laceration requiring suture repair in the ED. Participants will be randomized to receive intranasal dexmedetomidine (IND) 3 mcg/kg, intranasal midazolam (INM) 0.4 mg/kg, or inhaled 50% nitrous oxide (N2O). The primary outcome is the weighted mean anxiolysis score using the Observational Scale of Behavioral Distress - Revised (OSBD-R) from initial positioning to tying of the last suture. Secondary outcomes include need for additional anxiolytic, need for physical restraint, adverse events (AEs), and delayed maladaptive behaviors. The primary analysis will be conducted by intention-to-treat. Results will report posterior means, standard deviations (SDs), and 95% high density posterior credible intervals for Total Distress Score on the OSBD-R. We will rank interventions based on the probability that an intervention is superior (Pbest) and the Surface Area Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve (SUCRA) to indicate relative anxiolytic efficacy. The mean difference in Total Distress Score and secondary outcomes will be estimated using Bayesian models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval will be obtained from institutional review boards of the participating sites. Informed consent will be obtained from guardians of all participants in addition to assent from all participants. Study data will be submitted for publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05383495.
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 | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.007 |
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".