The Entropy Module® and Bispectral Index® as Guidance for Propofol-Remifentanil Anaesthesia in Combination with Regional Anaesthesia Compared with a Standard Clinical Practice Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to investigate the impact of the Entropy Module and Bispectral Index (BIS) monitoring on drug consumption and recovery times compared with standard anaesthetic practice in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery using a combination of regional and general anaesthesia as performed by an experienced anaesthesiologist. We hypothesised that electroencephalogram monitoring would lead to a lower drug consumption as well as shorter recovery times. With institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 90 adult patients undergoing surgery to the upper or lower extremity received regional anaesthesia for post- and intraoperative pain control and were randomised to receive general anaesthesia by propofol/remifentanil infusion controlled either solely by clinical parameters or by targeting Entropy or BIS values of 50. Recovery times and drug consumption were recorded. Data from 79 patients were analysed. Compared with standard practice, patients with Entropy or BIS monitoring showed a similar propofol consumption (standard practice 101 +/- 22 microg/kg/minute, Entropy 106 +/- 24 microg/kg/minute, BIS 104 +/- 20 microg/kg/minute) and showed similar Aldrete scores (10/10) one minute after extubation: 9.1 +/- 0.3, 9.2 +/- 0.6 and 9.3 +/- 0.5, respectively. Time points of extubation were 7.3 +/- 2.9 minutes, 9.2 +/- 3.9 minutes and 6.8 +/- 2.9 minutes, respectively, demonstrating a significant difference between Entropy and BIS (P = 0.023). Compared with standard practice, targeting an Entropy or BIS value of 50 did not result in a reduction of propofol consumption during general anaesthesia combined with regional anaesthesia as performed by an experienced anaesthesiologist in orthopaedic patients.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".