Quantification of the Variability in Response to Propofol Administration in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".