MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1498133938 · doi:10.5772/23990

Sedation Related to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

2011· book-chapter· en· W1498133938 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul Mitrut, Mitrut Anca, Streba Liliana, Calina Daniela, Salplahta Daniel

Bibliographic record

VenueGastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedationEndoscopyMedicineGeneral surgeryAnesthesiaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last ten years the number of worldwide gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has significantly increased; the majority are ambulatory endoscopies with appropriate intravenous sedation and analgesia which seems to be used more and more frequent. By definition, sedation is a drug-induced depression in the level of consciousness. Moderate sedation current terminology replaces the previous terminology called conscious sedation (American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA], 2002). Sedation and analgesia are being used in order to improve patient tolerance to endoscopic procedures by diminishing anxiety and discomfort. There are several sequent benefits: an adequate sedation allows the endoscopist to focus on the technical performance of the endoscopy, increases the rate of patients returning for follow-up examinations or for colonoscopic screening, prevents potentially harmful autonomic stress responses and improves the public reputation of the procedure. However, these benefits must be weighed against the complications (especially in the form of potential compromise of ventilatory function) and the added cost associated with the use of sedation and analgesia. Patients with associated comorbidities address to the gastroscopist to perform an endoscopy without being evaluated for their pathologies that could influence the procedures used in sedation. In addition, in cases where the examination is more invasive or conducted in a larger time interval, the level of sedation should be optimized to achieve an ideal procedure (ASA, 2002; Faigel et al., 2002). The practice of sedation varies from country to country, determined by cultural differences in pain perception and expectations of patients and physicians. A recent international study of 21 centers in 10 European countries and in Canada reported that the use of sedation during endoscopy varies from 0% to 100% at different sites: it was used in 44% of all procedures in Asia, 56% in Europe, and 72% in Canada, Central America and South Latin America. In the United States, only flexible sigmoidoscopy is performed without sedation (Wang&Lin, 1999). Such diversity reflects social, cultural, regulatory and economic consideration. Best practices for analgesia and sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy are still debated. Ensuring an adequate sedation and analgesia influences some aspects of endoscopic procedures such as quality of examination, patient cooperation, patient and performing physician satisfaction (Bell, 2004). There are several practical issues with implications for endoscopic sedation (Thomson et al., 2010):

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)0.009
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastrointestinal EndoscopySame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207