MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A pilot study of evaluation of cerebral function by S100β protein and near‐infrared spectroscopy during cold and warm cardiopulmonary bypass in infants and children undergoing open‐heart surgery*

2003· article· en· W2065078455 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M. Shaaban Ali, M. Harmer, M. J. Elliott, Ashvin Thomas, Fenella J. Kirkham

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAnesthesia and Neurotoxicity Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsCardiopulmonary bypassMedicineCardiac surgeryAnesthesiaOxygenationBrain functionSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cerebral injury in children undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) remains a major source of morbidity. The effect of cardiopulmonary bypass temperature on cerebral function in terms of serum S100beta protein level and cerebral oxygenation monitored by near infrared spectroscopy (NIRO-300) in children is not known. In this study, 18 children undergoing open-heart surgery at the Hospital for Sick Children in London were equally assigned by minimisation to warm (35 +/- 1 degrees C) or cold (25 +/- 1 degrees C) CPB. Changes in S100beta protein and cerebral oxygenation were studied in both groups. S100beta protein serum level increased significantly after CPB in both groups. There was no significant difference in serum S100beta protein concentrations between the two groups. However, cerebral oxygenation in terms of tissue oxygen index (TOI) was significantly impaired during rewarming from cold CPB. Five patients were desaturated (TOI < 50%) during rewarming in the cold bypass group compared to two in the warm patients. This study supports the use of warm CPB in children undergoing open-heart surgery, although further studies recruiting more patients are warranted.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Neurotoxicity ResearchFrench-language works237,207