Monitor-decoupled pharmacodymamics of propofol in children using State Entropy as the clinical end point
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents two alternative approaches to characterize the pharmacodynamics of propofol anesthesia in children, using State Entropy as a clinical end point. The first approach is the traditional approach where the pharmacodynamic model is described in terms of an effect-site equilibration rate constant and the Hill equation. In the second approach (the monitor-decoupled approach) the dynamics of the Entropy monitor is identified and added to the traditional pharmacodynamic model. The traditional approach resulted in mean k(e0) values of 2.08min(-1) and 1.27min(-1) for the Paedfusor and Kataria pharmacokinetic models, respectively. The monitor-decoupled approach resulted in significantly larger values (mean k(e0) values of 2.57min(-1) and 1.71min(-1)) than the traditional approach. The differences between k(e0) values suggest that the dynamic effect of the Entropy monitor must be accounted for when identifying the "true" pharmacodynamics of the patient, without the bias caused by the monitor's processing characteristics. The values of k(e0) obtained in this study were larger than those values previously published for the Bispectral Index. This is likely due to the different processing characteristics of the Entropy and Bispectral Index monitors, as well as the use of different pharmacokinetic models.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".