Exploring Clinical Conundrums in Obstetric Anesthesia Through Interactive Polls and Panel Discussion: Insights From Canadian Obstetric Anesthesiology Experts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth 2025;72:1047–1055. doi:10.1007/s12630-025-02986-4 The article synthesizes expert perspectives on unresolved clinical challenges in obstetric anesthesia, drawing on interactive audience polling and panel discussion conducted at the 2024 Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society Annual Meeting. The session was designed to explore real-world scenarios in which evidence is limited, consensus is lacking, and no single management strategy can be considered definitively correct. Six hypothetical and clinically plausible cases were presented to attendees, each representing a commonly encountered dilemma in obstetric anesthesia practice. Live audience responses were collected anonymously, followed by expert analysis and discussion.
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 | 0.098 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".