Propofol total intravenous anesthesia for MRI in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess clinical signs of airway patency, airway intervention requirements and adverse events in 100 children receiving propofol total intravenous anesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging, with spontaneous ventilation and oxygenation via nasal prongs. METHODS: Airway patency was clinically assessed and stepwise interventions were performed until a satisfactory airway was achieved. Propofol requirements, vital signs, procedure times and adverse events were also recorded. RESULTS: Ninety-three per cent of children had no signs of airway obstruction when positioned with a shoulder roll only, two required a chin lift, four required an oral airway and one required lateral positioning. The mean propofol induction dose was 3.9 mg.kg(-1) (range 1.8-6.4 mg.kg(-1)). The mean propofol infusion rate was 193 microg.kg(-1).min(-1) (range 150-250 microg.kg(-1).min(-1)). The initial and final mean respiratory rates were 26 and 23 b.min(-1) (P < 0.05). Movement was more likely at lower infusion rates (mean 175 microg.kg(-1).min(-1)). There were no respiratory or cardiovascular complications (calculated risk: 95% CI = 0-3%). The mean time from end of scan to discharge home was 44 min. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates good preservation of upper airway patency and rapid recovery using general anesthetic doses of propofol in children.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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".