Determination of the median effective concentration (EC<sub>50</sub>) of propofol during oesophagogastroduodenoscopy in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Propofol is commonly used to provide anaesthesia for children undergoing oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD). Despite this, the plasma concentration-response relationships for propofol used in this setting have not been established. METHODS: In order to determine the EC50 of propofol during OGD, we studied 12 children aged 3-10 years. No premedication was given. Propofol was administered via a target-controlled infusion system using the STANPUMP software based on a paediatric pharmacokinetic model. The 'up-and-down' method described by Dixon was used to determine the EC50. Accordingly, the target plasma propofol concentration for each patient, beginning with the second subject, was determined by the response of the previous patient. A patient was considered a 'responder' if there was minimal movement and the heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) remained < or = 120% of baseline during the procedure. Patients who moved excessively, i.e. requiring more than gentle restraint, or who manifest HR and BP >120% of baseline, were considered 'nonresponders'. RESULTS: The EC50 of propofol during OGD was 3.55 microg.ml(-1) in this study. CONCLUSIONS: The plasma propofol concentration associated with adequate anaesthesia for OGD in 50% of unpremedicated children is 3.55 microg.ml(-1). This concentration is higher than that required for OGD in adult 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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".