Disruption of Memory Consolidation May Explain Patterns of Memory Better Than Emotion-Induced Retrograde Amnesia in Study by Chen et al
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To the Editor We read with interest the article by Chen et al,1 which focused on the significant number of patients who did not remember locations where they had been prior to midazolam administration. The authors suggest that one explanation for these memory deficits could be emotion-induced retrograde amnesia. However, we feel a more likely explanation of the presented memory deficits is γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-mediated disruption of memory consolidation. A major determinant of memory formation is memory consolidation, a series of neural processes that occur after memory encoding that strengthen and stabilize memory representations in the long term.2 Consolidation processes begin immediately after an event is encoded, but they continue over a longer time course. Consolidation is an especially vulnerable time for memory formation, and processes that interfere with consolidation can result in subsequent forgetting of those memories. Notably, previous work has shown that agonism of GABA receptors interferes with memory consolidation, resulting in impaired memory.3 In the current study, participants were given the GABA agonist midazolam, which may have interfered with the consolidation of memories of events in the preoperative holding area and operating room (OR) experienced before midazolam administration. The presented pattern of memory deficits is consistent with GABA-mediated disruption of memory consolidation because patients who had more time to consolidate memories of the locations where they were given midazolam were subsequently more likely to remember those locations. The authors show that 24.9% of patients remembered the preoperative holding area, where they may have spent hours awaiting surgery, at Washington University in St Louis and the University of Chicago (sites where midazolam was given in that location). However, only 15.4% of patients remembered the OR, where patients typically only spend minutes before the induction of anesthesia, at the University of Manitoba (where midazolam was only administered in the OR). The disruption of the consolidation process was more critical for information that was weakly encoded (ie, the operating room) than for information that had the chance to be more strongly encoded (ie, the preoperative holding area). We further support a mechanism of GABA-mediated disruption of memory consolidation over emotion-induced retrograde amnesia because previous research has shown that emotional events can actually enhance memory consolidation.2 Finally, and perhaps most important, because consolidation processes can vary depending on the content of memories (ie, the patients’ interactions with their anesthesiologists versus details of a location), it is unknown whether patients would have difficulty remembering their anesthesiologists simply because they did not remember the preoperative holding area. As suggested by Chen et al, more research regarding memory and the perioperative period is needed to appreciate the implications that retrograde amnesia may have on patient compliance and satisfaction. Stephen M. McHugh, MD[email protected]Department of AnesthesiologyUniversity of PittsburghPittsburgh, Pennsylvania James W. Ibinson, MD, PhDDepartment of AnesthesiologyUniversity of PittsburghPittsburgh, Pennsylvania Vishnu P. Murty, PhDDepartment of PsychiatryUniversity of PittsburghPittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».