Emergence agitation during recovery from intracranial surgery under general anaesthesia: a protocol and statistical analysis plan for a prospective multicentre cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Emergence agitation after intracranial surgery is an important clinical issue during anaesthesia recovery. The aim of this multicentre cohort study is to investigate the incidence of emergence agitation, identify the risk factors and determine clinical outcomes in adult patients after intracranial surgery under general anaesthesia. Additionally, we will deliberately clarify the relationship between postoperative pneumocephalus and agitation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The present study is a prospective multicentre cohort study. Five intensive care units (ICUs) in China will participate in the study. Consecutive adult patients admitted to the ICUs after intracranial surgery will be enrolled. Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) or Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) will be used to evaluate the patients 12 h after the enrolment. Agitation is defined as an SAS score of 5-7, or an RASS score of +2 to +4. According to the maximal SAS and RASS score, patients will be divided into two cohorts: the agitation group and the non-agitation group. Factors potentially related to emergence agitation will be collected at study entry, during anaesthesia and operation, during postoperative care. Univariate analyses between the agitation and the non-agitation groups will be performed. The stepwise backward logistic regression will be carried out to identify the independent predictors of agitation. Patients will be followed up for 72 h after the operation. Accidental self-extubation of the endotracheal tube and removal of other catheters will be documented. The use of sedatives and analgesics will be collected. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from each of five participating hospitals. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02318199.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".