Slower administration of propofol preserves adequate respiration in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Propofol is a versatile anesthetic agent used in pediatric practice to facilitate investigational and interventional procedures. Propofol can cause significant respiratory depression, the management of which may require advanced airway management skills. This investigation aimed to increase the safety of propofol administration by developing a dosing schedule that would preserve spontaneous respiration in at least 95% of subjects. METHODS: With Research Ethics Board approval and informed consent, American Society of Anesthesiologists' Status I and II children aged 6-15 years presenting for upper or lower gastrointestinal endoscopy were enrolled. An intravenous loading dose of propofol (4 mg·kg(-1) ) was administered at a rate determined by a randomization schedule in a two-phased study. Following the loading dose, additional propofol was infused at 200 mcg·kg(-1) ·min(-1) for 5 min or until respiratory insufficiency was observed. In Phase I, the infusion rate was modified by 100 mcg·kg(-1) ·min(-1) increments depending upon the respiratory response of the previous subject. In Phase II, the duration of infusion was randomized according to a Biased Coin Design principle to determine the 95% threshold for respiratory insufficiency. RESULTS: Fifty subjects were included in the analysis. Infusion rates ranged from 1000 to 2300 mcg·kg(-1) ·min(-1) . Seven subjects experienced respiratory insufficiency. The mean (sd) time to respiratory insufficiency was 104 (36) s and duration was 93 (51) s. A propofol loading dose administered over 3.0 min (CI = 1.9-3.4 min) maintained spontaneous respiration in 95% of subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The respiratory response to propofol is highly variable in children. Slower infusion of propofol will result in a lower risk of respiratory depression.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".