Concentration–Effect Relationship of Cisatracurium at Three Different Dose Levels in the Anesthetized Patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The linearity of cisatracurium elimination and its concentration-effect relation were determined as part of a traditional rich data study with three dose levels in patients receiving balanced anesthesia. METHODS: Forty-eight adults with American Society of Anesthesiologists status I-II were randomized to receive an intravenous bolus dose of 0.075, 0.15, or 0.30 mg/kg cisatracurium. Anesthesia was induced and maintained with nitrous oxide-oxygen, propofol, and fentanyl. The mechanical response of the adductor pollicis muscle was recorded. Arterial blood samples were collected over 8 h. Cisatracurium, laudanosine, and the monoquaternary alcohol concentrations were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography. To assess the relative contribution of the input function, a parametric (assuming elimination from both the central and peripheral compartments) and a nonparametric pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model were both applied to data. RESULTS: Dose proportionality of the body disposition of cisatracurium and its two major metabolites at doses up to 0.30 mg/kg was confirmed. With the parametric approach, the effect compartment concentration at 50% block (EC50) significantly increased with the dose (136 vs. 157 vs. 209 ng/ml), whereas the effect compartment equilibration rate constant decreased (0.0675 vs. 0.0568 vs. 0.0478 min(-1)). A similar dose-dependent effect of the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relation was observed with the nonparametric approach, but the trend was 50% less pronounced. CONCLUSION: A dose-related change in pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic parameters was identified with both modeling approaches. A pharmacokinetic origin was ruled out, although no definite explanation of the underlying mechanism could be provided. These findings suggest that doses relevant to the anesthetic practice be used for estimation of EC50.
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) | 0.001 | 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".