The Role of Medical Hypnosis in Alleviating Procedural Anxiety in Pediatric Interventional Radiology: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric interventional radiology procedures often use general anesthesia to manage pain and anxiety, but general anesthesia carries risks. Medical hypnosis, a noninvasive technique, has shown potential, though its application in pediatric interventional radiology is underexplored. This pilot study compared medical hypnosis and general anesthesia in pediatric interventional radiology, focusing on pre- and post-procedural anxiety and overall patient experience. The mean age of the medical hypnosis group was higher than the general anesthesia group. Post-procedural anxiety was significantly lower in the medical hypnosis group compared to the general anesthesia group (p = .003). Additionally, the overall patient experience was rated higher for medical hypnosis (p = .037). Medical hypnosis offers a viable, noninvasive approach to reducing procedural anxiety and enhancing the patient experience in pediatric interventional radiology. Larger-scale studies are needed to validate these findings and optimize medical hypnosis implementation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".