The Effect of Nitrous Oxide on Cerebrovascular Reactivity to Carbon Dioxide in Children During Propofol Anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nitrous oxide (N(2)O) increases cerebral blood flow when used alone and in combination with propofol. We investigated the effects of N(2)O on cerebrovascular CO(2) reactivity (CCO(2)R) during propofol anesthesia in 10 healthy children undergoing elective urological surgery. Anesthesia consisted of a steady-state propofol infusion and a continuous caudal epidural block. A transcranial Doppler probe was used to measure middle cerebral artery blood flow velocity. Randomization determined the sequence order of N(2)O (N(2)O/air or air/N(2)O) and end-tidal (ET)CO(2) concentration (25, 35, 45, and 55 mm Hg) using an exogenous source of CO(2). At steady state, three sets of measurements of middle cerebral artery blood flow velocity, mean arterial blood pressure, and heart rate were recorded. A linear preservation of CCO(2)R was observed above 35 mm Hg of ETCO(2), irrespective of N(2)O. A decrease in CCO(2)R to 1.4%-1.9% per millimeters of mercury was seen in the hypocapnic range (ETCO(2) 25-35 mm Hg) with both air and N(2)O. We conclude that N(2)O does not affect CCO(2)R during propofol anesthesia in children. When preservation of CCO(2)R is required, the combination of N(2)O with propofol anesthesia in children would seem suitable. The cerebral vasoconstriction caused by propofol would imply that hyperventilation to ETCO(2) values less than 35 mm Hg may not be required because no further reduction in cerebral blood flow velocity would be achieved.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".