Intravenous ketamine sedation for painful oncology procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to determine the efficacy and adverse effects of intravenous (i.v.) ketamine sedation administered by nonanesthetist physicians for painful procedures. METHODS: A single-agent, procedural sedation protocol using titrated doses of ketamine i.v. (maximum 2 mg.kg(-1)) was conducted in outpatient pediatric oncology patients undergoing lumbar puncture (LP), bone marrow biopsy/aspiration (BMBx/A) or combination (LP/BMBx/A) in a tertiary care setting. The efficacy of analgesia and sedation (ability to perform the procedure), procedure duration, recovery time and the occurrence of adverse events are described. RESULTS: Fifty-eight subjects of a median age of 5 years (1-13) and median weight of 20 kg (10.5-68) underwent 119 sedations. An LP was performed in 73% of cases, a BMBx/A in 13% and LP/BMBx/A in 13%. Efficacy was 100% and the mean dose of ketamine was 1.3 mg.kg(-1) (0.4). The mean duration of the procedure was 6.6 min (4.2) and the recovery time was 11 min (4-45). Two subjects (1.7%) had a hypoxemia (SpO2 of <94%). No major airway complications occurred. The prevalence of hypertension (systolic > 20% at 5 min) was 54%. The median pain visual analogue score (VAS) for an observer was 0 (range 0-3) and caregiver was 0 (range 0-4). The median VAS for satisfaction (observer) was 10 (range 7-10) and caregiver VAS was also 10 (range 5-10). At 24 h after discharge, the incidence of bad dreams was 3.3%; vomiting, 10.8%; and abnormal behavior, 4.2%. CONCLUSION: Ketamine i.v. up to 2 mg.kg(-1) is an effective sedative for oncology procedures using a defined protocol.
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) | 0.000 | 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".