Intraoperative Infusion of Amino Acids Induces Anabolism Independent of the Type of Anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief BACKGROUND: The infusion of dextrose in patients receiving epidural and light general anesthesia or general anesthesia alone failed to achieve a positive protein balance. We sought to verify the hypothesis that nutritional supplementation with IV amino acids induced a greater protein balance in patients receiving epidural blockade compared with those receiving general anesthesia. METHODS: Sixteen patients were randomly assigned to receive either general anesthesia with desflurane (control group) or general anesthesia combined with epidural analgesia (EDA group). A primed constant infusion of stable isotope tracers l-[1-13C]leucine and [6,6-2H2]glucose was started after a 32-h fast before surgery, (3 h of fasted state), and continued for 3 h during surgery during which amino acids were infused IV (fed state). RESULTS: Compared with the fasted state, the endogenous rate of appearance of leucine decreased to a similar extent in both groups, and protein synthesis increased, with no difference between the two groups. Leucine oxidation did not change in either group. After amino acids infusion, endogenous glucose production remained unchanged and glucose clearance decreased in both groups. Blood glucose, plasma cortisol, serum insulin, and glucagon concentrations increased to the same extent in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural anesthesia provided no additional benefit beyond the anabolism obtained with amino acids. IMPLICATIONS: Amino acids were infused to establish a perioperative positive protein balance during surgery in patients receiving either an epidural blockade with light general anesthesia or general anesthesia alone. Epidural anesthesia provided no additional benefit beyond the anabolism obtained with amino acids.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".