MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052952057 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2013.2259592

Quantification of the Variability in Response to Propofol Administration in Children

2013· article· en· W2052952057 on OpenAlexafffund
Klaske van Heusden, J. Mark Ansermino, Kristian Soltesz, Sara Khosravi, Nicholas West, Guy A. Dumont

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPropofolController (irrigation)Sensitivity (control systems)Closed loopControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceIdentification (biology)AnesthesiaMedicineControl engineeringControl (management)EngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Closed-loop control of anesthesia is expected to decrease drug dosage and wake up time while increasing patient safety and decreasing the work load of the anesthesiologist. The potential of closed-loop control in anesthesia has been demonstrated in several clinical studies. One of the challenges in the development of a closed-loop system that can be widely accepted by clinicians and regulatory authorities is the effect of interpatient variability in drug sensitivity. This system uncertainty may lead to unacceptable performance, or even instability of the closed-loop system for some individuals. The development of reliable models of the effect of anesthetic drugs and characterization of the uncertainty is, therefore, an important step in the development of a closed-loop system. Model identification from clinical data is challenging due to limited excitation and the lack of validation data. In this paper, approximate models are validated for controller design by evaluating the predictive accuracy of the closed-loop behavior. A set of 47 validated models that describe the interpatient variability in the response to propofol in children is presented. This model set can be used for robust linear controller design provided that the experimental conditions are similar to the conditions during data collection.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations50
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207