MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A randomised, controlled study of peri‐operative low dose s(+)‐ketamine in combination with postoperative patient‐controlled s(+)‐ketamine and morphine after radical prostatectomy*

2004· article· en· W2074221374 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalYork UniversityUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
FundersCanada Research ChairsYork University
KeywordsMedicineMorphineKetamineAnesthesiaBolus (digestion)SalineAnalgesicProstatectomyAdverse effectSurgeryProstateInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a randomised, double-blind prospective study we compared the effects on postoperative pain and analgesic consumption of intra-operative s(+)-ketamine (100 microg.kg-1 bolus and a continuous infusion of 2 microg.kg-1.min-1) followed by postoperative patient-controlled analgesia with morphine (1 mg per bolus) plus s(+)-ketamine (0.5 mg per bolus), or intra-operative saline followed by postoperative patient-controlled analgesia morphine (1 mg per bolus) alone. A total of 28 male patients undergoing radical prostatectomy were studied. Morphine consumption, pain scores, pressure algometry and adverse effects were recorded for 48 h after surgery. Cumulative morphine consumption was significantly lower in the ketamine/morphine group (47.9 +/- 26.2 mg) than in the saline/morphine group (73.4 +/- 34.8 mg; p = 0.049). Pain scores at rest were significantly lower in the ketamine/morphine group across the 48-h study period (p = 0.01). No significant differences were found in pressure algometry measurements or the occurrence of adverse effects.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.232 · 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