MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cisatracurium Pharmacodynamics in Patients with Oculopharyngeal Muscular Dystrophy

2005· article· en· W1992956146 on OpenAlexaff
Marie-Jos e Caron, Fran ois Girard, Dominique Girard, Daniel Boudreault, Bernard Brais, Edgard Nassif, Philippe Chouinard, Monique Ruel, Andr� Duranceau

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsHôpital Notre-Dame
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOculopharyngeal muscular dystrophyPharmacodynamicsAnesthesiaMuscular dystrophyBolus (digestion)Internal medicinePharmacokinetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pharmacodynamics of muscle relaxants in patients with oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy (OPMD) have never been studied. We designed this study to compare the pharmacodynamics of cisatracurium in OPMD patients versus a control group. Forty patients were enrolled: 20 OPMD patients requiring general anesthesia for cricopharyngeal myotomy and 20 age-matched controls undergoing an operation of similar duration and expected blood loss. Anesthesia was standardized, and both groups received a bolus of cisatracurium 0.1 mg/kg. Onset time, time to 10% T1 recovery, and the intervals 10%-25% and 25%-75% were calculated for both groups. A subgroup analysis was performed in patients with a more severe form of OPMD. Demographic and intraoperative data were similar. Onset time was significantly longer in OPMD patients compared with the control group (4.6 +/- 1.5 min versus 3.4 +/- 1.0 min; P = 0.001). There was no difference in recovery times or indices between groups, regardless of the severity of the disease. In conclusion, there was no difference in the duration of a cisatracurium-induced neuromuscular block between OPMD patients and a control group. A delayed onset of action of the drug may occur.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207